Full text of "Paul VI Beautified? By Father Luigi Villa nwo illuminati freemasons"

See other formats

by Father Luigi Villa

(Doctor in Theology)

Paul VI

beatified?

The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success

1288 Summit Ave Suite 107
Oconomowoc, WI. 53066 USA
Phone 262-567-0920

Website: www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com
Email: ladyofgoodsuccess @ sbcglobal.net

Printed in the United States of America
First English Edition

For information about permission ro reproduce selections from this book,
write to Permissions:

The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success
1288 Summit Ave Suite 107
Oconomowoc, WI. 53066 USA
Phone 262-567-0920

Other former Editions:

1998 : Editrice Civilta, First Ed. in Italian

www.chiesaviva.com - omieditricecivilta@libero.it
2001 : Editrice Civilta, Second Ed. in Italian

www.chiesaviva.com - omieditricecivilta@libero.it

2009 : Editions Saint-Remi, First Ed. in French

www.saint-remi.fr

2010 : Wydamnictwo ANTIK Marcin Dybowski - First Ed. in Polish

www.ksiegarnia.antyk.org.pl - antyk@wolfnet.pl - antyk2@wolfnet.pl

Front Cover: Photo of Paul VI on the papal throne.

«Truth shall make you free».

(Jo. 8, 32)

«Brothers,

as stewards of the mysteries of God,
stand up and act.

That you see before your eyes
the devastation
that others are perpetrating».

(St. Athanasius, “Greek Patrology”, XXVII, 219)

SEMPER SUB SEXTO ROMA PERDITA FUIT

«I’m listening to the innovators who want to dismantle the
Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the
Church, reject Her finery, make Her remorseful for Her
historical past! Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that
the Church of Peter must take ownership of Her past, or
else She will dig Her own tomb (...) A day will come when
the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church
will doubt as Peter doubted. Will be tempted to believe
that man has become God, that His Son is merely a sym-
bol, a philosophy like many others, and in churches,
Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God
awaits them, as the sinner who cried in front of the emp-
ty tomb: where hast thou put Him?».

(From: “Pius XII Before History”)

PREFACE

Paul VI was always an enigma to all, as Pope John XXIII him-
self observed. But today, after his death, I believe that can no longer
be said, in light of the fact that in his numerous writings, speeches
and actions, the figure of Paul VI is clear of any ambiguity. Even if
proving this point is not so easy or simple, since he was a very com-
plex character, both when speaking of his “preferences”, by way of
suggestions and insinuations, and also for his jumping abruptly from
one idea to another, and when he opted for Tradition, but then im-
mediately preferred “novelty”; the whole thing in a language that
was often very inaccurate. Simply read, for example, his Addresses
of the “General Audiences”, to see a Paul VI made up of an irre-
ducible duality of thought, a permanent conflict, almost, between
his thought and that of the Church, which he was nonetheless to rep-
resent.

Since his time at Milan, many already called him “the man of
the utopias”, an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous
dreams, yes, yet unreal!”... Which brings to mind what Pius X
used to say of the “Leaders” of the Sillon 1 : “... The exaltation of

1 Sillon was a social Movement, originated in France in 1893 by Marc Sangnier.
At first, the movement adhered to the Pontifical directives. Leo XIII and Pius X
honored Sangnier with praises. The organ of the Movement was the newspaper
“Le Sillon” (The Furrow). Toward 1903, however, the Movement began to in-
volve itself with political-social concepts that brought it to become a “Center of

their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts,
their philosophical mysticisms, mixed, with a measure of Illu-
minism, have carried them towards another Gospel, which they
thought was the true Gospel of our Savior...” * 2 .

Now, this our first “study” of research upon the historical-reli-
gious figure of Paul VI has brought us to a sad conclusion, and that
is, that the “religion” preached by Paul VI did not always coincide
with that authentic Religion, constantly taught for 2,000 years, by
the perennial Magisterium, by all of the Saints and Doctors of the
Church. Although it is far from my intention to judge Paul VI, for
“only God probes kidneys and hearts” 3 , we nonetheless wish to
report, here, the painful findings of our study on him, convinced as
we are that he has drawn the faithful toward a “new religion”,
while this continues to carry the label of “Catholic”.

For the drafting of this “Dossier” - given the seriousness of the
“stakes”, especially when it comes to honestly taking one’s courage
in both hands to tell the whole “truth”, despite the risk of becom-
ing unpopular (exactly because, customarily, “veritas odium parit”
- “Truth begets hatred”), the author of this work, for more than a
decade, has been going through no less than 30,000 pages of en-
cyclicals, speeches, Conciliar documents, historical journals, com-
mentaries and magazines of all kinds, in order to gather an overview
adequate enough to weigh up the Pontificate of a Pope who has al-
ready been consigned to History. Therefore, making it open for dis-
cussion and possible “judgments” as to his actions.

It is evident that, with this work of mine, I do not claim to have
done an exhaustive analysis of the entire oeuvre of Paul VI. Yet his
quotations that I am presenting here cannot certainly have a differ-
ent meaning from what they contain; and therefore, the presentation
of other diverse texts of his, cannot but validate the “mens” of this
“Hamlet”, that is, of the “double face” of Paul VI!

However, the honest reader will find that our writings reproduce

Moral Unit” independent of the doctrine of the Church. Hence the condemnation
inflicted upon it by Pius X in 1910.

2 S. Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, 25 August 25, 1910, n. 41.

3 Psalm 7, 10.

his true dominating “mentality”; one so deeply rooted in him as
to have disastrously inspired his entire pastoral and his Magisteri-
um.

We are presenting this work, therefore, not to rejoice in it, but
with sadness. It is but the execution of a painful duty. As Faith is by
now publicly attacked, we can no longer feel bound to the duty of
silence, but rather to that of unmasking an anti-Christian mentality,
so many years in the making, and one that sunk its root in the Pon-
tificate of Paul VI, too.

Certainly, writing about him has not been easy on me, as Paul VI
was a Pope at the center of an Ecclesiastical shipwreck that perhaps
was, and still is, the most dreadful the Church has ever witnessed
throughout Her history.

In writing about him, therefore, one cannot be beating about
bush, quibble in search of sensational episodes in order to hide the
reality, that is, the real responsibilities of his unsettling Pontificate,
in the complex framework of Vatican II.

That is why, to come to a humanly equitable judgment of the
thought of Paul VI and his responsibilities, I had to go over again
the “official texts” of his writings and his words, pronounced dur-
ing Vatican II and those of his executions. Only thus could I untan-
gle the grave “question” of his responsibilities in the dreadful dra-
ma the Church has lived and has been living from the onset of the
Council to this day.

I may, therefore, make mine the lesson of Manzoni in his cele-
brated book: “Observations Upon Catholic Morality”, where in
Chapter VII, he wrote:

«... One must demand, of a doctrine, the legiti-
mate consequences drawn from it, not those
which passions might deduce from it».

And so, let us open directly the pages of the First Address to
the Council, in which Paul VI made his own, manifestly, the
principle of “Modernist heresy” that Pope John XXIII has already
expressed, in his Opening Address of the Council, on October 11,
1962, (an Address, however, which had been inspired by the then
Archbishop of Milan, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini), in
which he said the following:

«Neque opus Nostrum, quasi ad finem primar-
ium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus
praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur,
sed potius ut ea ratione pervestigetur et ex-
ponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra».

And here is the substance in the English language:

«...But, above all, this Christian doctrine be
studied and exposed through the forms of liter-
ary investigation and formulation of contempo-
rary thoughts

Now, one such “principle” is unheard of in the history of all
the century of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, as it takes the place
of the “dogmatic” principle, alone to offer proof and certainty of
the “Catholic truth”, and the teaching Church has always taught
that the “reason of believing” does not lean at all upon scientific
conquests, achieved through man’s intellect, for the “reason of be-
lieving” rests exclusively upon the AUTHORITY of REVEALING
GOD and upon that of the SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE
CHURCH, which received from Jesus Christ the mandate to teach it
officially and in an infallible manner.

The “principle” enunciated by Paul VI, on the contrary, be-
comes the negation of that of the APOSTOLIC TRADITION, want-
ed by God, and it reverses the traditional Magisterium of the
Church, putting on the teacher’s desk, in place of “REVEALING
GOD” and of the “TEACHING CHURCH”, the method of man’s
autonomous investigation and the formulation of a purely human
and arbitrary doctrine, peculiar to the philosophical-literary style of
modern man - therefore, of the man of all ages, mutable with the
times - oblivious that only the “truth” revealed by God is the sole
immutable and eternal truth.

Therefore, it vanished; that principle of the investigation to
know “Revelation” by knowing the original teaching of the Church
was done away with, instead it would be that of knowing the teach-
ing of modem thought.

But this smacks of “heresy”!

One cannot invent dogma, nor can one reduce it into a conve-

nient cliche, as it has been done in these years of upheaval and ar-
rogance, ignoring that Christ, and only Him, is and shall always
be the absolute “truth”.

How Paul VI should have shuddered, for inflicting on the
Church of Christ this horrible catastrophe, by means and in the
name of an alleged Ecumenical Council!

Furtheremore how prevailing is still that whole 2nd Chapter of
Epistle 2. a of St. Paul to the Thessalonians:

«... For the mystery of iniquity already worketh:
only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be
taken out of the way. And then that wicked one
shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill
with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with
the brightness of his coming: him whose coming
is according to the working of Satan, in all power
and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction
of iniquity to them that perish: because they re-
ceive not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved. Therefore God shall send them the op-
eration of error, to believe lying: That all may be
judged who have not believed the truth but
have consented to iniquity» 4 .

This is the reason, the only reason, in the light of the Gospel
and of the Tradition of the Church that we are asking the reader to
proceeed with the following pages.

4 II Thessalonians II, 7-12.

«... I was not drawn to the clerical state which seemed
sometimes stagnant, closed... involving the renunciation of
worldly tendencies in proportion to the renunciation of the
world... If I should feel this way, it means that I am called
to another state, where I would be fulfilled more harmo-
niously for the common good of the Church».

(Paul VI to Jean Guitton, in: “Dialogues with Paul VI,” p. 285)

«I noticed how his thinking was secular. With him, I was
not in the presence of a “cleric”, he even promoted an un-
expectedly secular Papacy »!

(Jean Guitton, in: “The Secret Paul VI”, Ed. Pauline)

PROLOGUE

It was during the course of the works of the 35th Assembly of
the Italian Bishops that Cardinal Ruini, the president of CEI (Italian
Episcopal Conference), before the Pope and the Bishops announced
the decision of filing the “cause for the beatification” of Paul VI.
Although the assent of the “Permanent Council of the Italian
Episcopal Conference” had already been granted, the procedure for
the causes of the Popes also calls, however, for the consultation of
the entire National Episcopate. A Pope, in fact, is not only the
“Bishop” of Rome, but he is also the “Primate of Italy”, and
therefore the “placet” of the Italian Bishops was one more passage
required by the canonical procedure, such as it was established by
Paul VI himself, and, subsequently, by John Paul II in the document
“Divina Perfectionis Magister”.

Rome is, however, the diocese of every Pope. It is Rome, there-
fore, that must act as official interlocutor with the “Congregation
for the Causes of the Saints”. And so on May 13, 1992, Cardinal
Ruini, Vicar of the Pope for the city of Rome, issued an “Edict”,
appearing in the diocesan weekly “Roma Sette” in which, among
other things, it stated: «We invite every single faithful to commu-
nicate to us directly, or else transmit to the Diocesan Tribunal of
the Vicariate of Rome any “information” which, in any way,
may argue against the reputation of sanctity of the said “Ser-
vant of God”».

I waited a few more years before introducing this “evidence”
against the reputation of sanctity” of Paul VI, both for religious
courtesy toward part of the “senior consents” to the introduction of

“the cause of beatification” and in order to first follow a part of
the canonical process, hoping that at least someone would come
forth with a few reasons “for serious doubt” (at least on the op-
portunity of this process!). However as this did not happen, the un-
dersigned, who completely disagrees with this initiative for the
beatification of Paul VI has felt the obligation to pass these com-
prehensive “informational pages” against the reputation of holi-
ness.” Also, I was morally driven because of two “pushes” by John
Paul II: one, on May 13, 1993 in his speech to the Bishops at the
Italian Episcopal Conference saying:

«I received the notification of the opening of the
process for the canonization (?!) of my Prede-
cessor, Paul VI. To me, he was a Father, in a
personal sense. For this reason, I can but ex-
press my great joy and my gratitude»...

The other, just 15 years after the death of Paul VI, saying:

«I do hope the process of beatification of Paul
VI may soon be favorably concluded. We pray
that the Lord will grant us to see, as soon as
possible, this Servant of His elevated to the
honors of the altars» 1 .

On May 25, 1992, however, I had already telephoned Monsign-
or Nicolino Sarale, at the “Secretary of State” office, a sincere
friend and collaborator of “Chiesa Viva ” 2 asking him for informa-
tion on that “pronouncement” of Cardinal Ruini, regarding pre-
cisely the filing of the “cause for the beatification” of Paul VI.
Well, he told me that the said “pronouncement” had been a sort of
“coup d’etat” on the part of the Vicar of Rome, since “the major-

1 August,7, 1993.

2 He had been collaborating with it for over 12 years, with the “Vangeli Festivi”
and with the “Osservatorio Romano” page.

ity of the Italian Episcopate would squarely reject it” (sic).

I leave with him - now in heaven - the responsibility of this clar-
ification. I, however, believe this to be true, due to the Monsignor’s
profound honesty and sincerity, and from the various other sources
that I subsequently gathered, on this scheme to raise to the altars
the two Popes of Vatican II, in order to manifest the “supernatu-
ralness” of Vatican II, and, consequently, of this “New Church”
with its “Reforms”, despite the explicit declaration of Paul VI him-
self when he spoke of the “self-destruction” afoot within the
Church (for which, however, he himself was primarily responsible!).

That being said, another justification, for my work on Paul VI,
is the fact that, in any age, historians and theologians have always
judged every “Pontificate”; thence there cannot be anything extra-
ordinary in passing a “judgment” on the pontificate of Paul VI, as
well.

Moreover: as a son, by natural right, has always the prerogative
of complaining about his own father and even reproach him about
his acts, when these should not be in keeping with his parental du-
ties, why should not I, a priest, and a member of the “Ecclesia
Mater”, have the right and duty to maintain the teaching I received
as irreformable doctrine, and therefore eternal, from the “Ecclesia
Docens” in Her perpetual Magisterium?

Is my “rational homage” to God 3 , through Faith, perhaps to
break away from that which once was taught to us, and replace it
with that which is being taught today, in the name of “novelty” and
“change”?

And is the one “responsible”, the “accomplisher”, the “collab-
orator” of all that occurred, during and after the Vatican n, not per-
haps he who sat at the “top” of the Hierarchy?

Certainly never, in the past, was there such a disconcerting con-
flict, or a similar contradiction between the “truths” of the “past”
and the other “alleged truths” of this “present”.

Definitely, one needs to have lost all love for the Church and for
souls - as well as lost common “good sense” - to have the nerve to
propose the beatification of Paul VI! Indeed this is the last straw,

3 Romans 12, 1; Pius IX, “Qui pluribus”, DB 1737.

this desire to sanctify a Pope that openly failed his “duties” as
Supreme Pontiff. Yes, for even a Pope, like any Catholic faithful,
must indeed seek his own sanctification through the fulfillment of
the duties related to his own station.

Now, since in this historical-theological “Essay” I shall attempt
to demonstrate that Paul VI did not fulfill his duty, I allowed my-
self to side with the “devil’s advocate”, the one who in every
“process of beatification”, has the grave task of scrutinizing the
life and writings of the candidate, just to dig up all those elements
that might oppose his canonization!

Even though a man becomes the Head of the Roman Catholic
Church, and is called officially “Holy Father”, does not mean that
his “alleged sanctity” has necessarily accompanied him into this of-
fice. In fact, of the 261 Popes who governed the Catholic Church,
only 76 were ever “canonized”. The last of them being St. Pius X.

It also must be known that, within the framework of the proce-
dure necessary to establish “the heroic virtues” - an indispensable
preliminary to beatification and canonization, rather, a “sine qua
non” condition - is the verification of a certain number of posthu-
mous miracles (that is, after death), attributed to the celestial in-
tercession of the candidate. This, legal procedure must be executed,
as the honor of the Church and the credibility of Her decisions to-
ward everyone, believers and non-believers, are at stake. Unfortu-
nately, some dispensations that have already been done against these
canonical requirements have later opened the way to certain abuses!

Now, even if this inexplicable push for a quick speedy solution
for the “process for the beatification” of Paul VI, may not seem
an obvious violence to Canon Law in order to rush to a positive so-
lution, and even if a conclusion in his favor is reached and would be
based exclusively on positive “depositions”, it is undeserved, illegal
and dishonest, since Paul VI had betrayed Pius XII, with whom
he collaborated; he had a dubious moral life 4 ; and finally his
Pontificate had been marred by very grave deviations from the
very “Depositum Fidei” and consequent errors.

4 In order for the “Congregation for the Causes of the Saints” to recognize the
“supernatural signs” of divine approval, such as “miracles”, obtained by “He”

For this, what more could be done, to give a confident “judg-
ment” of the real “thought” of Paul VI and, therefore, of his re-
sponsibility in the dreadful drama in which the Church is living, if
not quoting his own “Addresses” to the Council and his Sunday
“texts”, or of particular occasions, relating to his mandate as
Supreme Pontiff of the Church of Christ?

How many times had I noticed that Paul VI was against his Pre-
decessors, despite the illusory quantity of mundane applauses he re-
ceived! How many times had I considered that his “Great Design”
which was opposed, however, to the Faith of Catholic Tradition, to
the extent of recalling what St. Pius X had written:

«This triumph of God on earth, both in indi-
viduals and in society, is but the return of the
erring to God through Christ, and to Christ
through the Church, which we announced as
the program of our Pontificated.

whom the Congregation must recognize as “worthy” of the supreme honors, the
Congregation must, in the first place, (and thus in Paul Vi’s cases, too) form a
clear idea as to the “reputation” of the “sanctity of life”, and then study the
“heroicity of the virtues”. Now, that could neither come from the sole observa-
tion of the “facts”, nor from the exclusive account of the judgments, but it must
also come from the people that have known him in life, or, at any rate, from reli-
able writings and “documents”. Now, since it is undisputable that Paul Vi’s
moral repute had not been so clear, it is a very serious moral obligation for the
“Congregation For the Causes of the Saints” to ascertain the minutest detail.
While a “beatification” would not imply the infallibility on the part of the Pa-
pal Magisterium, (and all the less would it confer any value upon the saying,
“vox populi, vox Dei!”), it would not be honest, nonetheless, that one let the
faithful believe it, distracting them from a just and dutiful notion one has to have
of the divine truth, of the alleged “sanctity” of the elected, and of his alleged
virtues.

5 “Communium Rerum” of April 21, 1909.

While studying the program of Paul VI, I saw the opposite, and
that is: to lead to ruin the Kingdom of God through a “universal ec-
umenism” of “faith in Man” and of “cult of Man”, necessarily
leading to a Deist Humanism in the service of the Masonic UN
(United Nations).

Now, this reminds me of that strange “confidence” Paul VI
made to the pilgrims that Wednesday of April 12, 1967:

«But there is the strange phenomenon that is
produced in us: wanting to comfort you, you
communicate to us, in a certain sense, your per-
il, to which we wish to remedy; it comes to
mind, with the consciousness of our inadequa-
cy, the memory of the weaknesses of Simon, son
of John, called and given the name Peter by
Christ... the doubt... the fear... the temptation
of bending Faith to modern mentality... ».

Unfortunately, this Church of Christ, under his Pontificate, in-
deed withered because of his innovative, reforming, and perturb-
ing action. And he could see it for himself, so much so that, in dis-
turbing terms, on December 7, 1968 - third anniversary of his
proclamation of the “Cult of Man” - he had to recognize it:

«The Church, today, is going through a mo-
ment of disquiet. Some indulge in self-criticism,
one would say even self-destruction. It is like an
acute and complex inner upheaval, which no
one would have expected after the Council. One
thought of a flourishing, a serene expansion of
the concepts matured in the great conciliar as-
sembly. There is also this aspect in the Church,
there is the flourishing, but... for the most part
one comes to notice the painful aspect. The
Church is hit also by he who is part of it».

And on June 29, 1972, his judgment, on what was happening
in the Church, was even gloomier:

«Through some cracks the smoke of Satan has
entered the temple of God: there is doubt, un-
certainty, problematic, anxiety, confrontation.

One does not trust the Church anymore; one
trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us
from some newspapers or some social move-
ment, and then rush after him and ask him if
he held the formula of real life. And we fail to
perceive, instead, that we are the masters of life
already. Doubt has entered our conscience, and
it has entered through windows that were sup-
posed to be opened to the light instead... ».

«Even in the Church this state of uncertainty
rules. One thought that after the Council there
would come a shiny day for the history of the
Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of
tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We
preach ecumenism and drift farther and far-
ther from the others. We attempt to dig abysses
instead of filling them».

«How has all this come about? We confide to
you our thought: there has been the interven-
tion of a hostile power. His name is the Devil;
this mysterious being who is alluded to even in
the letter of St. Peter. So many times, on the
other hand, in the Gospel, on the very lips of
Christ, there recurs the mention of this enemy
of man. We believe in something supernatural
(post-correction: “preternatural”!), coming into
the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate any-
thing of the Ecumenical Council, and to pre-
vent that the Church would explode into the
hymn of joy for having regained full conscious-
ness of Herself» (!!).

And so, Paul VI admitted to himself that the hand of Satan
was in the conciliar and post-conciliar Church!.. But what did he
do to save that Church of Christ from the dominance of Satan, of
whom he had ascertained was the devastating reality? Nothing. Al-

though it had been he himself that had thrown the barque of Peter
into the tempest!

Ought he not perhaps, instead, with decisive and vigorous ges-
tures, refloat the boat from the banks in which he had thrown it?
Nay, he apologized and washed his hands of it like a modem day Pi-
late, saying:

«The Pope does not believe he must follow an-
other line other than that of the faith in Jesus
Christ, whom holds His Church at heart more
than anyone else. It shall be Him to stifle the
tempest. How many times has the Master re-
peated: “Confidite in Deum. Creditis in Deum
et in Me credite!” The Pope will be the first to
execute this command of the Lord and to aban-
don himself without anguish or inopportune
anxieties, to the mysterious play of the invisible
but very certain assistance of Jesus to His
Church» 6 .

Just something Pilate would say indeed! Three years earlier,
when he threw everything up in the air in order to reform, change,
and modify, did he not govern, and impose his ideas, creating all of
the premises of that tempest on the Church, and thus relinquishing
any right to fold his arms, to abandon the helm of the barque of Pe-
ter, demanding that God Himself miraculously rescue the calamity
that he created?

And instead, on June 21, 1972, Paul VI went back to repeat-
ing his false doctrine through which he sought to convince
(whom?) that it was God’s job to rescue His Church:

«In some of our personal notes, we find on this
subject: perhaps, the Lord has called me to this
service not because I have any flare for it, or

6 December 7, 1968.

because I govern and rescue the Church from
Her present difficulties, but because I suffer
something for the Church and because it ap-
pears clearly that He, and not another, guides
Her and saves Her».

«We confide this sentiment surely not to make
a public, thus conceited act of humility, but so
that it be given to you, too, to enjoy of the tran-
quility that we derive from it, thinking that not
our weak and inexperienced hand is at the helm
of the boat of Peter, but the invisible, and yet
strong and loving hand of Lord Jesus»!

It is one more false and hypocritical witty remark, for God had
not put him at the helm of Peter so that he would send the boat adrift
with his “Reforms”, but so that he would govern it according to
just Tradition, as had his Predecessors.

And so, Paul VI should not have asked God for a miracle to save
the Church again, but he should have, instead, humiliated himself
and corrected his own “errors”, and fulfilled the work of salvation
that his duty demanded.

In one word, he had to quit praising and exalting the Man mak-
ing himself a god, and think instead of the billions of men who still
lay in the shadow of death and are awaiting the Revelation of the
true God, Jesus Christ, the only one that sanctifies them and saves
them. It is not this, perhaps, the first question of our Father: “sanc-
tificetur Nomen Tuum”?.. And what are, then, these UN, these
UNESCO and all these other International Institutions if not the
work of Satan intent on destroying the Kingdom of Christ, His
Church? Therefore, why that rushing to erect sand castles, forgetting
that “ADVENIAT REGNUM TUUM”, which is the sole “Interna-
tional” that shall truly last for eternity? And how could he nurture
dreams of international politics when his duty, willed by his voca-
tion, could not be anything other than the relentless quest for the
“Will of God, on earth as it is in heaven”?

And had Paul VI not seen, what the Earth had become when
God was thrown out by the French Revolution to be governed by
“Freedom”, “Equality”, “Fraternity”, that is, upon the false

“Great Principle” of 1789, which had taken the place of the “Law
of God”, to submit it to the “Rights of Man”? Therefore, he was
to be the faithful Judge of the “Honor of God” and of the “Rights
of God” in order that the “Will of God” would be respected. Not
so, instead! Perhaps, Paul VI had forgotten the command of Jesus:
“But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you” 7 ; Paul VI, that is,
had forgotten that the future belongs to God, to Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, the Savior of the World, and that, at the end of times, the
“Now shall the prince of this world be cast out” 8 , to make room
only for the “Church of God: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and
Roman”.

With such a picture before me, how could I not be tempted to
ask myself whether Paul VI had ever had a true vocation to the
“priesthood”? Even the words I had read in the book, “Dialogues
with Paul VI” by Jean Guitton - his greatest “friend” - had al-
ready caused me to reflect a lot:

«I had a intense calling to live in the world, to
be a lay man, as they say today. I did not feel cut
out for the clerical life that, at times, seemed to
me static, closed, more interested in preserving
than promoting, implying the renunciation of
earthly tendencies in the measure of its con-
demnation of the world.

Nonetheless, if one had these feelings, could one
join priesthood in the Twentieth century? If I feel
thus, it means that I am called to another state,
where I will realize myself more harmoniously,
for the common good of the Church». 9

Grave “words”, which brought to mind those other ones, also
written by his “friend”, in “Paul VI Secret”:

7 Matthew 6, 33.

8 John 12, 31.

9 Jean Guitton, “Dialogues with Paul VI”, Mondadori, p. 285.

«I noticed how his thoughts were of a secular
kind. With him, one was not in the presence of
a “cleric”, but of a layman, promoted, unex-
pectedly, to the papacy!» 10 .

Paul VI, then, would have been a “layman” (not a “priest”, that
is!).

A phrase that had upset me, precisely because the “layman”
Giovanni Battista Montini had become “Pope” Paul VI.

Oh! May Mary’s Immaculate Heart grant me the “grace” of be-
ing able to transmit, in these pages, the “truth”, in order to remain
faithful to the Faith in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and transmitted
by His Church, sole “custodian” of the “Depositum Fidei”!

Father Doctor Luigi Villa

10 Jean Guitton, in “Paul VI Secret”, Edizioni Paoline, p. 21.

Paul VI with his “friend” Jean Guitton.

Paul VI.

«If an angel from heaven
is to proclaim a Gospel
other than that I announced,
let him be accursed!

Not that there is another Gospel,
but there are heretics
purporting to distort the truth».

(St. Paul, Letter to the Hebrews)

CHAPTER I

HIS “NEW RELIGION”

The pontificate of Paul VI has been, to us, a real catastrophe, for
the reason that it was an authentic revolution that spun the Church
on a 180 degrees about-turn, by means of a Council that supplanted
the “Traditional Church” with a “New Church” that carried us
back to Luther, to the riots of the Synod of Pistoia, which Pius VI
condemned with the Bull “Auctorem Fidei” of 1794 1 .

With this book I shall attempt to demonstrate my assertions us-
ing of preference the “texts” of Monsignor Montini, Cardinal Mon-
tini, Pope Montini himself. Although forcibly limited in number, I
believe the quotations will be nonetheless sufficient to give knowl-
edge of his real “minds” both as “Pastor” and “Supreme Priest”
of the Church of Christ.

I shall attempt, therefore, to show, even though in a concise yet
sufficient manner, what occurred in the Church during his years of
government.

It was an authentic “Revolution”, a sort of civil war, even though
he differentiated its method and object, and the position it held.

1 Pius VI, “Auctorem Fidei” Bull of August 28, 1794.

A book, therefore, this book of mine, I place at the feet of the
Immaculate, entreating her blessing over the author and its readers.

***

The roots of that “new ecclesial course” of his can be traced to
the Subjectivism of Immanuel Kant and to the “Naturalism” of
Jean Jacques Rousseau, which set in motion the revolt of man
against God.

But we must also evoke the great battle that was immediately
started by the popes, since the publication of the Encyclical “Mirari
Vos” of Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832 2 ), up until the times of the
Vatican II.

All of the Popes, therefore, had stood their ground.

The “Syllabus” of December 8, 1864 3 listed the “errors” of
Modernism: Pius IX never stopped fighting against “Catholic Lib-
eralism” 4 ; neither did Leo XIII with his encyclicals “Immortale
Dei” and “Libertas Praestantissimum” 5 . Pius X made, after that,
an implacable analysis of “Doctrinal Modernism” with the en-
cyclical “Pascendi” of 1907 6 , and condemned Marc Sangnier’s po-
litical-religious utopia with the “Letter on the Sillon” of August
25, 1910. Pius XI continued this battle, against the new modem
“heresies”, with the encyclical “Quas Primas” of December
11,1925, whose doctrine stands at the opposite of the current secu-
larization; and subsequently with “Mortalium Animos” of January
6, 1928, anticipating the condemnation of contemporary “Ecu-
menism”. Pius XII - whose teachings are all against the current
subversion in the Church - with “Mystici Corporis” of June 29,
1943, against the reformed ecclesiology; with “Divino Afflante
Spiritu” of September 30, against Biblical Modernism; with “Me-
diator Dei” of November 20, 1947; with “Haurietis Aquas” of

2 DB 1613-1617.

3 DB 1688-1780.

4 Pius IX, June 16, 1871; and also December 11, 1876.

5 DB 1866.

6 DB 2071-2110.

May 16, 1956; with “Humani Generis” of August 15, 1950, against
dogmatic reformism, or “new Modernism”...

And now, let us ask ourselves: Why was that which the Church
had always strongly rejected and condemned, allowed even within
the doctrinal riverbed by Vatican II?

The answer to this question, I find in the opening address of
Vatican II of October 11, 1962, hammered out and drafted by the
Archbishop of Milan, Montini 7 , but pronounced by John XXIII; an
address that opened the doors 8 to all “novelties”. In fact, the “Mes-
sage to the World” of October 20, voted by acclamation, was a
signal of victory for the “new spirit”. Paul VI would later make of
it a boisterous address: “Unusual case - said he - and yet an ad-
mirable one. One could say that the prophetical charisma of the
Church had suddenly exploded” 9 .

And then came the “Pacem in Terris”, all inspired with the
“Declaration on the Rights of Man”: rights of “freedom”, of
“universal peace”, in accordance with the Masonic principles,
and for these divulged and promptly exploited worldwide.

But it was only the beginning of the dissolution. With Paul VI,
in fact, subversion would open the floodgates and acquire a certain
official legitimacy it did not have before.

One has just to read all the “opening and closing Addresses” of
Session II that Paul VI delivered, brimming with that “new spir-
it”, with that subtle oscillation of his thought that knew how to rec-
oncile the extremes, that is, the contradictions, with skilful bold-
ness 10 .

And so came the “October Revolution” with the ballot of Oc-
tober 30, 1963. But it will be the encyclical “Ecclesiam Suam” of
August, 1964, (already hinted at in his address of September 29,

7 Testimony of Monsignor Colombo published by Juffe, “Paul VI”, p. 129.

8 During a reception given by Cardinal Suenens for non-Catholic guests, Michele
Harper, the director of the British “Foundation Trust”, had to say, “John XXIII
opened the window, but Paul VI opened the door!”

9 Address of September 29, 1963; “Address to the Council”, Centurion Editions,
n. 6, p. 118.

10 Address of November 18, 1965.

1963, which would become the “Blueprint” of his Pontificate) that
Paul VI would manifest his intentions, even though persevering in
his equivocal behavior, speaking of “vital Experience... and yet
faith”; of “Renewal... and yet Tradition and spiritual perfec-
tion”; of “Dialogue... and yet preaching”... Words sweetened
with clear vision, however, with his “new Religion”, which all his
predecessors had rejected.

And it would be the choice of the “Reformation”, of the “Op-
timism”, of the “Ecumenical Dialogue”, of the “Opening to the
World”, that will produce, then, his most dangerous “schemes”,

which he solemnly promulgated in spite of the not so few opposi-
tions.

But the opposition would be crushed, and subversion would gain
the upper hand.

***

After these clear hints we can say that the subversion (of the
Faith) in the universal Church is the inescapable consequence of the
Pontificate of Paul VI, who used in fact Vatican II to achieve his lib-
eral dreams of “renovation” and “revision”.

Read:

«... We wish to make our own the important
words employed by the Council; those words
which define its spirit, and, in a dynamical syn-
thesis, form the spirit of all those who refer to
it, be they within or without the Church. The
word “NOVELTY”, simple, very dear to to-
day’s men, is much utilized; it is theirs... That
word... it was given to us as an order, as a pro-
gram... It comes to us directly from the pages
of the Holy Scripture: “For, behold (says the
Lord), I create new heavens and a new earth”.
St. Paul echoes these words of the prophet Isa-
iah 11 ; then, the Apocalypse: “I am making
everything new” 12 . And Jesus, our Master, was
not He, himself, an innovator? “You have heard
that people were told in the past ... but now I

tell you ...” 13 - Repeated in the “Sermon on the
Mount”.

It is precisely thus that the Council has come to
us. Two terms characterize it: “RENOVA-
TION” and “REVISION”. We are particularly
keen that this “spirit of renovation” - according
to the expression of the Council - be understood
and experienced by everyone. It responds to the
characteristic of our time, wholly engaged in an
enormous and rapid transformation, and gen-
erating novelties in every sector of modern life.
In fact, one cannot shy away from this sponta-
neous reflection: if the whole world is changing,
will not religion change as well? Between the
reality of life and Christianity, Catholicism es-
pecially, is not there reciprocal disagreement,
indifference, misunderstanding, and hostility?
The former is leaping forward; the latter would
not move. How could they go along? How could
Christianity claim to have, today, any influence
upon life?

And it is for this reason that the Church has
undertaken some reforms, especially after the
Council. The Episcopate is about to promote
the “renovation” that corresponds to our pre-
sent needs; Religious Orders are reforming
their Statutes; Catholic laity is qualified and
found its role within the life of the Church;
Liturgy is proceeding with a reform in which
anyone knows the extension and importance;
Christian education reviews the methods of its
pedagogy; all the canonical legislations are
about to be revised.

11 II Corinthians 5, 17.

12 21, 5.

13 Matthew 5.

And how many other consoling and promising
novelties we shall see appearing in the Church!

They attest to Her new vitality, which shows
that the Holy Spirit animates Her continually,
even in these years so crucial to religion. The
development of ecumenism, guided by Faith
and Charity, itself says what progress, almost
unforeseeable, has been achieved during the
course and life of the Church. The Church
looks at the future with Her heart brimming
with hope, brimming with fresh expectation in
love... We can say... of the Council: It marks
the onset of a new era, of which no one can de-
ny the new aspects that We have indicated to
you» 14 .

Well, this is some “new era”, which brought us so many “new
aspects”, but sorry ones indeed, unintelligent, destructors of an
entire “Christian Civilization”, built in so many centuries of mar-
tyrdom and constructive work, spiritual and social alike!

And, unfortunately, of all this the most real and grave responsi-
bilities must indeed be attributed to HE who never should have
done it. And the “evidence” is incontrovertible for it is derived from
official “data”, present in all of his “opening” and “continuing”
Papal Addresses, such as the “ECCLESIAM SUAM” of August
1964, in the imminence of the beginning of the discussion upon the
“LUMEN GENTIUM”, concluded on November 21, 1965, and
with the ENDING of Vatican II, in particular with his ADDRESS
of December 7, 1965, (the most disconcerting of all his previous
ones), and with the CONSTITUTIONS and the CONCILIAR DE-
CREES, strictly intended.

Now, “scripta manent!” and “QUOD FACTUM EST, infec-
tum fieri nequit!” It is this, therefore, the true identity of a Vatican
II alleged as only entirely “pastoral”, but also filled with ambigu-

14 General Audience of July 2, 1969.

ity, reticence, and surprise attacks, which demonstrate that the “EC-
CLESIAM SUAM”, far from representing a certain support for
those theses, has been used to erect a building on the sand.

One should pause and reflect a moment upon the consequence of
those FOUR “CONDITIONS”, indeed dictated by Paul VI in the
“Ecclesiam Suam” for a fecund dialogue:

1) The CLARITY: which should consist in a PERFECT BAL-
ANCE of position between the two dialoguing parties. (But didn’t
Jesus send out HIS APOSTLES to PREACH? And thus, NOT TO
DIALOGUE!). Such a “stance” of Vatican II, therefore, is “UN-
HEARD OF” in the entire history of the Church, although She had
to confront the grave aberrations of PAGANISM, of POLYTHE-
ISM, of GREEK PHILOSOPHY, of SOPHISMS of all kinds. But
the Church never dreamt of adopting that impossible principle of a
parity of “dialogue” between Herself and non-believers.

2) The MEEKNESS: one sided, however, and with the exclu-
sion of the ANNOUNCEMENT - always mandatory - and even
with the exclusion of “threats of damnation” for those whom
“non crediderit” (“will not believe”)! Now, even this “new style
of evangelization” is a true BETRAYAL of the MANDATE of
CHRIST to the APOSTLES: “Euntes docete” (“Go Teach”). Es-
pecially now that every DEFENSE of the FAITH has been dis-
mantled.

3) The TRUST: with only two “human” aspects of the “dia-
logue”; that is: trust in the INTRINSIC VIRTUE of the WORD
(and not even that it is about the REVEALED WORD, is speci-
fied!), and trust in the approach of those who welcome it (with no
hint at the action, nonetheless necessary, supernatural, of prayer
and Grace).

4) The PRUDENCE: which, however, here is completely want-
ing, precisely because of those three preceding conditions indicated

in the “Ecclesiam Suam”!

Again: that invitation to exercise the three superior faculties of
man, with regard to clarity and dialogue, is surely not an exhorta-
tion to encourage an apostolic keenness, nor to revise the form of

the language to be used. However, this idea that the Church up un-
til 1964, that is, prior to the advent of Vatican II, had wasted time,
using radically wrong methods, hence now, She must reverse every-
thing She has done and bring Herself up to date, had certainly
been neither a polite nor an edifying expression on the part of Vati-
can II toward the Church of Tradition.

Furthermore, they call for the Church to employ, today, a tech-
nique of more perfect “dialogue”, such as that which has been in-
vented now. Hence one should no longer imitate, for example, the
talk of a St. Stephen, the Protomartyr, with those of the Synagoga
Libertinorum, who ended up with stoning him to death just be-
cause he had the imprudence of not remaining silent about deli-
cate truths that were unpalatable to those devils. And so one should
no longer learn from the Apologist Saints whom, like St. Augus-
tine, fought against all the heretics of their time.

In fact, the four points - quoted above - of the “Ecclesiam
Suam”, represent a pastoral position diametrically opposite to that
of the Apostle Paul, who pointed out: «... et sermo meus, et praed-
icatio mea NON IN PERSUASIBILIBUS HUMANAE SAPIEN-
TIAE VERBIS [“and my speech and my preaching not in per-
suasive words of human wisdom,”] (a “method” willed, instead,
by the “Ecclesiam Suam”!)... UT FIDES VESTRA NON SIT IN
SAPIENTIA HOMINUM, SED IN VIRTUDE DEI» 5 [“that
your faith be not in the wisdom of men, but in the strength of
God.”].

The “dialogue” of the “Ecclesiam Suam”, on the contrary, af-
ter twenty centuries of preached Christianity (not “dialogued”!),
must rest exclusively upon “human means”, excluding the funda-
mental necessity of the Divine Grace in order that the Revealed
Word be fruitful. Since Vatican n, not anymore! It (the Revealed
Word) must be presented and dialogued as a reasoning of man,
from man to man. To Paul VI, that is, in the “dialogue” must place
a value on the authority, or the personal competence and ability of
the interlocutor rather than the authority of the REVEALING GOD.
And, unfortunately, this “doctrine” of the “Ecclesiam Suam” is

15 I Corinthians 2, 2, 4.

latent in all the Documents, Decrees, and Constitutions of Vatican
II, in which man is made the “center of everything”.

As Paul VI, having said it in person, no one could ever ac-
cuse us of having missed the tenor of that “character”, unset-
tling, paradoxical, and subversive to the Supreme Magisterium
of twenty centuries, which put Man in the place of God.

Do read, therefore, this other disquieting confession of Paul
Vi’s, too:

«Nunc vero animadvertere juvat, Ecclesiam per
suum magisterium, quamvis nullum doctrinae ca-
put sententiis dogmaticis extradinariis definire
voluerit... ad cuius normam homines hodie
tenentur (?!) conscientiam suam, suamque agendi
rationem conformare...».

As one can see, here too Paul VI expressly declared that Vatican
II did not intend to teach, through dogmatic definitions, any Chap-
ter of doctrine, and therefore, necessarily, Vatican II is in no part
covered by infallibility, since infallibility is tied only to the
“truths” taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium as re-
vealed - and, therefore, to be believed “de fide divina”, aut
“catholica” - by the Solemn Magisterium and by the Ecumeni-
cal Councils, or even by the Supreme Pontiff, as regards dog-
matic definitions.

Therefore, by avoiding to provide dogmatic definitions, Paul VI
could also utter these other incredible enormities, such as are read
shortly after that declaration in the same address:

«Aliud est etiam, quod consideratione dignum
putamus: huiusmodi divitem doctrinae copiam,
eo unice spectare, ut homini serviat» (!!).

The English version, perhaps, will highlight in a higher disqui-
eting degree the enormity of that declaration: «... All this doctrinal
wealth points but to one direction: to serve man».

Disconcerting indeed! For these are the words of a “Pope”
whom, to further reinforce us in his thought, continues:

«The Church has, so to say, declared Herself
the SERVANT OF HUMANITY»... (Whereas
Our Lady had declared Herself “ANCILLA DO-
MINI”)...

He then continues:

«Servant of Humanity, at the very time when
Her ECCLESIASTICAL MAGISTERIUM and
Her PASTORAL GOVERNMENT have, by
reason of the council’s solemnity, assumed
greater splendor and vigor. The idea of MIN-
ISTRY has been central... Has all this and all
that we might say upon the HUMAN VALUE
(?!) of the Council, perhaps diverted the atten-
tion of the CHURCH IN COUNCIL toward the
ANTHROPOCENTRIC direction of modern
culture? DIVERTED, NO; DIRECTED, YES».

Extremely clear yet bewildering words, for they are the vio-
lation of the principle of identity (or of contradiction).

In both one and the other, in fact, the “center” is always Man.

The remainder of the Address, then, intensifies his position even
more:

«Any careful observer of THE COUNCIL’S
PREVAILING INTEREST FOR HUMAN
AND TEMPORAL VALUES (?!) Cannot deny
that such (PREVAILING) INTEREST derives
from the PASTORAL CHARACTER the
COUNCIL has made ITS PROGRAM... ».

Now, this reference, often recurring in the Conciliar and post-
Conciliar Documents, to the pastoral character of Vatican II, cre-
ates a specious ambiguity, as it tends to distinguish itself from all
the previous Ecumenical Councils, precisely for its pastoral char-
acter, almost insinuating, however, the idea that the other Councils
had never paid heed to the “pastoral reasons” and, therefore,
“practical”, as if they had limited themselves to chasing butterflies

under the Arch of Titus, or hanging out in the stratosphere of theo-
logical abstractions. However, it is like bestowing an unjustifiable
credential of “idiot” on the Fathers of the other Councils!

To us, instead, it throws rather a shadow of suspicion upon the
doctrinal validity of Vatican II, so bristling with sophisms, traps,
heavy pages, with a twisted language, insidious, reticent, ambigu-
ous. For instance its dwelling at the core of the issues without dis-
cerning their bottom can be seen, in the answer given by some Fa-
thers, at the end of the Dogmatic Constitutions “Lumen Gen-
tium” and “Dei Verbum”. It will suffice to read that answer, on
page 254, marginal number 446, and page 522 and 523, at bottom,
just beneath Paul Vi’s signature, of the “Edizioni Dehoniane”, at the
words: “RATIONE HABITA moris CONCILIARIS, ac praesentis
CONCILII (?!)... FINIS PASTORALIS...

(Reason having been established of the will of the Council and
of the present council... the purpose is pastoral...)

It will be seen, Before those declarations of Paul VI in his Ad-
dress of December 7, 1965, closing Vatican II... and those of the
“DECLARATIO DE LIBERTATE RELIGIOSA”, before the
words of marginal number 1044 and 1045, upon the “INVIO-
LABLE RIGHTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON”, (The only
“Rights” named in those numbers, ignoring GOD’s altogether, al-
though PRIMARY and CONDITIONING of Man’s Rights), will
be clearly seen both the lack of preparation and the swindle, “in
contemptum” of the whole Supreme Magisterium of the Dogmatic
Tradition of the Church antecedent to Vatican II.

Therefore, the entire chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessa-
lonians will always have contemporary meaning: “Non credendum
seductoribus... et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quern Dominus
Jesus interficiet Spiritu oris sui et destruet illustratione adven-
tus sui eum... Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut
CREDANT MENDACIO, UT JUDICENTUR INIQUITATP’A

All that is left to do is to confide in the Lord, repeating with the
Apostle, “Scio enim CUI CREDIDI, et CERTUS SUM quia
potens est DEPOSITUM MEUM SERVARE IN ILLUM

16 “One is not to believe in the seducers... And then shall that Wicked be revealed.

DIEM” 17 . [For I know whom I have believed and I am certain that
he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him, against
that day. - 2 Tim. 1:12]

***

At this juncture, one finds oneself confronted with a “New
Christianity”, that of Paul VI, who has endeavored to render Chris-
tianity more “present”, more interesting for the man of today.

But his was a wrong course. The religion founded by Our Lord
Jesus Christ is essentially supernatural. According to human wis-
dom, however, His teachings, transmitted to us by the Holy Gospels,
are absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable. A God who
makes Himself “Man”, who let them insult Him, scorn Him all the
way to the ignominy of the Cross ... A Master beatifying sacrifice
and suffering and preaching the annihilation of His own self is cer-
tainly not loved by the world for His doctrine, but He is loved only
through Faith, with a vision, that is, supernatural, which transcends
completely the human vision of things.

Paul VI and Vatican n, instead, pushed things in a manner that, by
degrees, God has almost disappeared to make room for man. In this
picture, Christianity has become “religion of man”, and although the
name of God remains and the “religion” may be still called “Christ-
ian”, in reality, however, it is nourished only by the second Com-
mandment, filled with “let us love one another”, with “enough
with religious war”, with “let nothing stand in our way any-
more”... in order to embrace only those things that might unite us.

But this is in radical opposition with the Gospel that teaches, in-
stead, the “supremacy of God” and of His Love. Therefore, if we
are to love and serve our neighbor, too, we are to do it because God

whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with
the brightness of his coming... And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie... That they all might be damned who be-
lieved not the truth” (II Thessalonians 2, 8-12).

17 II Timothy 1, 12.

the Father loves him in the person of His Own Son Jesus Christ, and
thus without the love of God, even the love of man has no sense
anymore 18 .

Sure, Paul VI could not deny openly this dogmatic truth, but he
did go, however, as far as saying that love is “due to every man for
his own quality” 19 .

However, from the reading of his “texts” his obsession, his pri-
mary anxiety is only, or almost, at the level of man.

In fact, he expresses himself thus:

«This Council... in conclusion, will give us a
simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in
order to love God» 20 .

«...To know God, one has to know man» 21 .

«A11 these doctrinal riches (of the Council) aim
at one and one thing only: to serve man» 22 .

«We, too, no more than any other, we have the
cult of man» 2! .

«The religion of the God who became man has
met the religion (for such it is!) of man who
makes himself God. And what happened? Was
there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There
could have been, but there was none» 24 !

And so forth, as in this other “passage” of his of March 27,
1960, at a conference:

«Shan’t modern man, one day, as his scientific
studies progress and discover realities hidden

18 “La Civilta Cattolica” magazine of March 1974.

19 Peace Day Message, November 14, 1970.

20 Council’s Closing Address, December 7,1965.

21 Idem.

22 Idem.

23 Idem.

24 Idem.

behind the mute face of matter, come to prick
up his ear to the wonderful voice of the Spirit
palpitating in it? Shan’t it be the religion of to-
morrow? Einstein himself perceived the spon-
taneity of a religion of today... Isn’t the work
already in progress along the trajectory leading
straight up to religion?» 25 .

Astonishing indeed! Montini, here, preaches a “religion”
wherein the supernatural and Revelation are excluded! One

could say that, to him, the religion of tomorrow would no longer be
that of Jesus Christ, that which is communicated to man through the
Grace of the Faith, of the Holy Gospel, of the Passion of Christ, of
the Holy Eucharist... No! That other “religion” of his shall be the
“religion of the universe”, a result, that is, of the “straight trajec-
tory” traced by work and scientific research. A “dream”, how-
ever, which has nothing to do with the Christian Faith, for Chris-
tianity is Divine religion, flowing out from the Sapience of God, and
thus contrary to the sapience and preferences of the man fallen with
the original sin.

Christianity, therefore, is opposed to “human development” in
the sense intended by the world, for Christianity places itself on a
supernatural level, where the development is certainly real, but alto-
gether different. The Saints, in fact - shining examples of Chris-
tianity - have never attempted to “realize themselves”, but rather
to mortify themselves and renounce everything for the love of God.
It is the Christian asceticism that realizes us in a wonderful spiritu-
al blossoming in which the true freedom of the sons of God is to be
found.

Instead, the humanism of Paul VI (which he often confuses, in
his writings and speeches, as if spirit and matter might form one
sole thing), places itself at the level of the exclusive “human rea-
son”, coupled with a “natural conscience”, as a norm, whereas,
on the contrary, Christianity places itself at the level of the Faith,
taking the Holy Gospel as “norm” to follow in the course of life.

25 “Documentation Catholique” n. 133, June 19, 1960.

The great mistake, therefore, of Paul VI was that of being rather
a humanist than a Christian, putting the Gospel at the service of his
humanist “dream”, identical to the ideal of Freemasonry, whose
ideal of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, would be achieved through
the development of the universal conscience.

The whole of the writings and speeches of Paul VI, in fact, show,
with sad clearness, that it was man, rather than God, the center
of his cares... That all was thought out, judged, and directed ac-
cording to the service of man.

Paul Vi’s Christianity unpinned from the Cross. Namely:

- a Christ considered a “liberator”, not as much from sin, as
from suffering, from humiliation, from enslavement;

- a Gospel mixed up with the “Charter of Man’s Rights”, and
placed at the service of “social justice”;

- the “Rights of God” neglected, to the advantage of the exal-
tation of the “Rights” and preferences of man;

- an evangelization reduced to a “dialogue”, not to convert,
and resting upon “human means” rather than upon supernat-
ural means...

In brief: Paul VI, more than Christ and His Gospel, has served,
and had man served, substituting:

- the supremacy of the supernatural with the supremacy of
the natural, of the temporal, of man;

- the supremacy of the “Law of God” with the supremacy of
the conscience;

- the supremacy of the “Kingdom of God” and of the “eter-
nal life” with the supremacy of the world, of history, of his chimera
toward achieving a sort of paradise on earth.

After which, one could accuse Paul VI of giving man a “cult”
that should not be given him. Man must be certainly loved, but not
of a disorderly love, that is, a love not regulated by the love of God
or independent of His love.

The “cult of man”, instead, leads to the myth of the sameness
among all men, hence the leveling of the classes (with all the vio-
lence this brings about), hence “universal democracy” (another
utopia dear to Paul VI), which is but Masonic universalism.

Let us further quote, therefore, some other “text” that illustrates

this “cult of man” in Paul VI, so evident in his humanism.

In his “Address” to the Last Public Session of Vatican II, Paul
VI made a sort of “profession of faith” that sounds unprecedented.
That his speaking of man, whom must be understood, respected, and
admired, ended up in an authentic “cult of man”!

«The Church of the Council - said he - has
much focused on man, man as he really is to-
day: living man, man all wrapped up in him-
self, man who makes himself not only the cen-
ter of his every interest but dares to claim that
he is the principle and explanation of all reali-
ty... Secular humanism, revealing itself in its
horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain
sense, defied the Council. The religion of the
God who became man has met the religion of
man who makes himself God. And what hap-
pened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condem-
nation? There could have been, but there was
none. The old story of the Samaritan has been
the model of the spirituality of the Council. A
feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated
the whole of it. The attention of our Council has
been absorbed by the discovery of human
needs. But we call upon those who term them-
selves modern humanists, and who have re-
nounced the transcendent value of the highest
realities, to give the Council credit at least for
one quality and to recognize our own new type
of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than
any others, honor mankind; WE HAVE THE
CULT OF MAN!» 26 .

26 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

But already on September 14, 1965, Paul VI was asking himself:

«Could the Church, could we but look upon
him (man) and love him?...» «The Council is a
solemn act of love toward humanity. May
Christ assist us so that it be truly so».

Now, speaking in such a way has a flavor of abdication, of ser-
vility in front of atheism in order to obtain its favors. But he, Paul
VI, calls it “a merit”, whereas, on the contrary, it is an abandon-
ment, a deformation of Charity. Instead of condemning the insane
pride of man, who exalts himself and is no longer willing to submit
to God, Paul VI fondles him, wants to appear likable to him, af-
firming that he and his peers have a “cult of man” that surpasses
even that of atheistic humanism!

It was then this very form of idolatry toward man that caused
“Religious Freedom” to be proclaimed as a fundamental and ab-
solute right of man! It was then this very false love for man that
gave life to the “Gaudium et Spes”, or “The Church in the World
of Today”, “which will represent the crowning of the work of the
Council”, and which Paul VI will proclaim has inspired the religion
of Man, “the center and crown of the world” 27 .

In his humanist delirium, he further added:

«Another point we must stress is this: all this
rich teaching (of the Council) is channeled in
one direction, the SERVICE OF MANKIND, of
every condition, in every weakness and
need...».

And he continued:

«Has all this, and everything else that we might
say about the human value of the Council, per-
haps diverted the attention of the Church in the

27 “Gaudium et Spes”, n. 12.

Council toward the trend of modern culture,
centered on humanity? Nay, the Church stood
Her course, but She turned to man... The mod-
ern mind, accustomed to assess everything in
terms of usefulness, will readily admit that the
Council’s value is great if only because every-
thing has been referred to human usefulness.
Hence no one should ever say that a religion
like the Catholic religion is without use, seeing
that when it has its greatest self-awareness and
effectiveness, as it has in the Council, it declares
itself entirely on the side of man and in his ser-
vice...^ 8 .

And on July 13, 1969, he said

«Man reveals himself to us a giant. He reveals
himself to us divine not in himself, but in his
origin and in his destiny. Honor to man, honor
to his dignity, to his spirit, to his life».

Yes, for man is the end . . .

«The first step toward the final and transcen-
dent goal which is the basis and cause of every
love... Our humanism becomes Christianity,
our Christianity becomes centered on God; in
such sort that we may say, to put it differently:
a knowledge of man is a prerequisite for a
knowledge of God».

Disconcerting indeed! In his utterance, gone are the Cross of
Christ, the baptismal Grace, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the myster-
ies of the Faith, treasures of Truth, of Life, of Virtue of the Sole
Catholic Church.

28 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

We are in front of a sort of idolatry of man, such as Christ Him-
self denounced when He responded to Satan that was tempting Him:

“Vade retro, Satana! For it is written, thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” 29 .

Now, this brings to mind another address of St. Pius X’s, in his
first encyclical:

«Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath
employed everywhere in persecuting religion,
in combating the dogmas of the Faith, in
brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations
between man and the Divinity! While, on the
other hand, and this according to the same
Apostle (St. Paul), it is the distinguishing mark
of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity
put himself in the place of God, raising himself
above all that is called God; in such wise that
although he cannot utterly extinguish in him-
self all knowledge of God, he has despised
God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the uni-
verse a temple wherein he himself is to be
adored... Hence it follows that to restore all
things in Christ and to lead men back to sub-
mission to God is one and the same aim. But if
our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we
must use every means and exert all our energy
to bring about the utter disappearance of the
enormous and detestable wickedness, so char-
acteristic of our time: the substitution of man
for God» 30 .

This truly papal line, however, stands opposite to that liberal
Paul VI, whom, at Sidney, on December 2, 1970, stated to the press:

29 Matthew 4, 10.

30 “E Supremi Apostolatus” of October, 4 1903.

«We have trust in man. We believe in the store
of goodness in everyone’s heart. We know the
motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress and
brotherhood that lie at the root of so many
wonderful undertakings, and even of so many
protests and, unfortunately, of violence at
times... Sow the seed of a true ideal... an ideal
to make him grow to his true stature as one cre-
ated in the likeness of God, an ideal to drive
him to surpass himself unceasingly, in order to
build jointly the brotherly city to which all as-
pire and to which all have a right. The Catholic
Church, especially since the fresh impulse of
“revision” that sprang from the Council, is go-
ing out to encounter this very man whose ser-
vice is your ambition».

Sure, Paul VI, in his utterance, had forgotten what is written in
the Holy Scripture: “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and
maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the
LORD” 31 . And also: “For without Me, you can do nothing” 32 .

Paul VI, instead, at the Angelus of February 7, 1971, on the oc-
casion of a space mission, composed a “Hymn to the Glory of
Man”, as if to counter the Hymn to “Christ King of the Cen-
turies”:

«Honor to man; honor to thought; Honor to
science; Honor to the synthesis of scientific and
organizing ability of man who unlike other an-
imals, knows how to give his spirit and his
manual dexterity these instruments of con-
quest. Honor to man, King of the Earth, and to-
day Prince of heaven. Honor to the living being

31 Jeremiah 17, 5.

32 John 15, 5.

that we are, wherein is reflected the image of
God and which, in its dominion over things,
obeys the biblical command: increase and
rule».

Here, too, the error of Paul VI is that of the supremacy of the hu-
man, his giving value to all that is humanly appreciable, which is of
man, “center and crown”, whereas the Church of Christ is always
been, yes, at the service of man, to the extent of heroism, even, but
this, however, always in view of the service to God and of the sal-
vation of the souls. Therefore, Paul Vi’s anthropocentrism, his ori-
entation upon Man, rather than upon God, brings to mind those in-
sane words of the Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium et Spes” 33 ,
which says: “All things on earth should be related to man as
their center and crown”; words that certainly do not echo the
“Charitas Christi urget nos!” (The Charity of Christ drives us!).

Regrettably, it seems more than evident that in Paul VI man
comes before God, even though, among his citations of the Gospels,
he would often repeat the following one: “Inasmuch as ye have
done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done
unto me” 34 . By all means! But what one does to one’s neighbor, has
to be of a quality acceptable to Jesus. And this cannot definitely be
the fondling of man’s pride, boasting of his false science, encourag-
ing his rejection of any dependence on God. He should never have
stopped thinking that his vocation required him to preach, at all
times, the supremacy of the supernatural and the Christian view
condensed in the “Beatitudes”: “Blessed are the poor in spirit...
the meek... the peacemakers... they that suffer persecution for
justice’s sake...” 35 .

He had no business, therefore, in boasting about his being an
“expert in humanity”, as he qualified himself at the UN (October
4, 1965)... and to say:

33 “Gaudium et Spes”, n. 12.

34 Matthew 25, 40.

35 Matthew 5, 3-5-9-10.

«The mission of Christianity is a mission of
friendship among the peoples of the earth, a
mission of understanding, of encouragement, of
promotion, of elevation, and, let us say it one
more time, a mission of salutations» 36 .

A “vision”, however, which is far from that of the Gospel, and
certainly does not reflect the Words of Jesus: “Think not that I am
come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword” 37 ... and for this he was always a “sign of contradiction”.

But Paul VI manages to aggravate his own utterance:

«Man... aware of terrible doubts... We have to
convey to him a message that We believe liber-
ating. AND WE, WE believe all the more we
are authorized to propose it to him because we
are wholly human. It is the message of MAN to
man»«.

Here is the “New Gospel”, all human, of Paul VI!

Even speaking about his “missionary travels”, he will confess:

«We ourselves have no other intention on our
various journeys to all points of the globe.

What we try to do with all our poor strength is
to work for the bettering of men, with the aim
of bringing about the reign of peace and the tri-
umph of justice, without which no peace is en-
during^ 39 .

36 At Bethlehem, January 6, 1964.

37 Matthew 10, 34.

38 At Bethlehem, January 6, 1964.

39 In Indonesia, December 3, 1970.

Now, these are his own words: “no other intention” than that of
working for human causes; therefore, not as a custodian of the
Faith, but as an “expert humanist”! his faith, that is, is in man.
That is why he regarded Christianity as mere “humanism”.

For that reason, after his “Ecclesiam Suam”, the Church must
not convert anymore, because “The Church makes Herself dia-
logue...” a “dialogue” that characterized His Pontificate 40 ; a “dia-
logue” that would no longer consist in preaching the Gospel, but
rather in working for a peaceful coexistence between good and evil,
between true and false.

«... A great undertaking, well worthy of reunit-
ing every man of good will into an immense and
irresistible conspiracy toward this integral de-
velopment of man and this concurrent develop-
ment of humanity, to which we have dared ex-
hort him in the name of a “integral human-
ism”, in our encyclical “Populorum Progres-
sio”» 41 .

Poor Jesus!.. This “Vicar on Earth” of Yours must have com-
pletely forgotten Your command: “But seek ye first the Kingdom
of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be
added unto you” 42 .

But here is another proof of the basis upon which Paul VI con-
sidered that peace could be established:

«Let us venture to use a word, which may itself
appear ambiguous, but which, given the
thought its deep significance demands, is ever
splendid and supreme. The world is ‘love’: love
for man, as the highest principle of the terres-

40 “Ecclesiam Suam”, n. 60.

41 Address for the 25th anniversary of the UN, October 4, 1970.

42 Matthew 6, 33.

trial order... Peace is a product of love: true
love, human love... If we want peace, we must
recognize the necessity of building it upon foun-
dations more substantial... True peace must be
founded upon justice, upon a sense of the in-
tangible dignity of man, upon the recognition of
an abiding and happy equality between men,
upon the basic principle of human brother-
hood, that is, of the respect and love due to each
man, because he is man» 43 .

So, the “more solid basis” to achieve the peace, is not the re-
spect of God and of His laws, but “the sense of an intangible hu-
man dignity”, the “recognition of an abiding and happy equali-
ty between men”, based “upon the basic principle of human
brotherhood...”. And yet, Jesus had said: “Without Me, you can
do nothing” 44 .

But Paul VI, instead, speaking at FAO (Rome based UN Food
and Agriculture Organization), had this to say:

«As for you, it is man you succor, it is man you
sustain. How can you act against him, when
you exist for him and could not succeed but
with him?» 45 .

Even this witty remark of Paul Vi’s seems another sort of “pro-
fession of faith” in man, a repetition of what he had said already
at the UN:

«We bring to this organization the suffrage of
our recent Predecessors, that of the entire
Catholic Episcopate, and our own, convinced as
we are that this organization represents the

43 Peace Day Message, November 14, 1970.

44 John 15, 5.

43 To FAO, November 16, 1970.

obligatory path of modern civilization and of
world peace... The peoples of the earth turn to
the United Nations as the last hope of concord
and peace. We presume to present here, togeth-
er with our own, their tribute to honor and of
hope» 46 .

This is the essence of the thought of Paul VI. He believes in the
power of man, even atheistic man, anti-Christian, and Satanic, as is
the United Nations. He believes in him more than he believes in the
supernatural means: Grace, Prayer, Sacraments... The great hope,
to him, is man! He will say it also on January 27, 1974, on the oc-
casion of the canonization of a Nun, Therese de Jesus Jornet Ed-
ibards:

«... A Saint for our times; that which charac-
terizes, indeed, our times, is the humanitarian
aspect, social, and organized, marked by the
cult for man».

And at Bogota, before a crowd of laborers waving revolutionary
banners, he said:

«You are a sign. You are an image. You are a
mystery of the presence of the Christ (!!). The
Sacrament of the Eucharist offers us His hid-
den Presence, live and real; but You too are a
sacrament, a sacred image of the Uord in our
midst» 47 .

Montinian rambling speeches! As in this other euphoric lyricism
of his, commenting on the trip from the earth to the moon. It is an-
other chant from which transpires all of his “cult of man”:

46 Address to the UN, October 4, 1965.

47 At Bogota - D.C. September 1968, n. 1524-1544.

«Honor to man; honor to thought; honor to sci-
ence; honor to human daring; honor to the syn-
thesis of scientific activity and organizing abili-
ty of man who unlike other animals (?!) knows
how to give his spirit and his manual dexterity
these instruments of conquest; honor to man,
king of the earth and, today, prince of heav-
en... » 48 .

But we, instead, shall continue to say: “Now to the King eter-
nal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and
glory forever and ever. Amen” 49 .

48 Angelus of February 7, 1971.
49 1 Timothy 1, 17.

“RELIGION” OF MASONRY

- «Freemasonry informs us that there is only one true religion and
therefore a natural one: the cult of humanity ». (“The World
Freemasonry”, gen. mag. 1870).

- «The cornerstone of any system of Freemasonry is opposed to
the ascetic and transcendental feeling which carries men beyond
the present life and grants that one considers himself as pilgrim
on earth. Until this non-system is destroyed by the hammer of
Masonry, we will have a society of poor deluded creatures, who
have sacrificed everything to achieve happiness in a future exis-
tences (The Mason, Mauro Macchi in “Masonic Review”, Febru-
ary 16, 1874).

- «Why tell the man well - according to Masonic principles - his
conduct should not seek out or control over his reason (...);
should not envisage the moral law as a command from Above,
from an other-worldly existence, supernatural, which we must
bow to. (...). Eliminate the supernatural, morality is Masonic
and purely naturalistic, human rights and human duties, goals
and human struggles are related to earth. ..». (The Mason,
Thomas Ventura).

- «The Masonic morality is neither Christian nor Jewish, or Mo-
hammedan. Freemasonry proclaims certain principles on which
moralists of all countries and all religions agree and strive to
harmonize these views that are sometimes contradictory but on-
ly in appearance». (The Mason, Savior Farina).

- «... One wonders if Freemasonry is not a religion, I say clearly
that Masonry is a religion». (The Mason, Gorel Porciatti).

- «(Freemasonry is) the largest, most beautiful, the noblest, the
most civilized of all religions”, because whoever has asked to en-
ter this Temple, understands that he left another Temple, where
they worshiped false gods and liars». (The Mason, Ugo Lenzi).

he cults dt Vhwnme

W ^BMAT«SNs 1965

T ^™wiEmE m Tm A tn

$£11 est-il arrive ?

L’Eglise
® ^st tournee

vers rhomme

Ul DISC0U « Df CLOTURE D| PAUl Vj

L -BEJUSE Ciww-il?. i

i ftaifanlJe rid r**liJi-bil!
*i jar 1»* riiamut* 1 i - *#l "

La rresjse — mom^eal. mars

human isme de Paul VI, un culfe de I'homme

Ie d&M'ieuir, bnn W nfimdfcrt — - * __ M ,

5 Iran UtTjiiM p E j r n- -|U^ dan- I J “ lin ' f,U

■■It. dmaUP-— ■ 1± ||ilirn 1 \ ... FP wfiiiii'iinl

__ — 1 a, ret

iwl , Jti5 cMHOuo i’homme \ essft-v

? message ae VI \M-

I’homme ****** P ^

i.-’r ii : ns* ^ W 'it ^ rt

« * *“* arSS; ^-Ll r„3 ^ :s"

Above: The historic embrace between Paul VI and Patriarch of Constantinople Athenago-
ras, Primate of the schismatic Eastern Orthodox Church. It occurred on January 5, 1964,
during the Pope’s trip to the Holy Land.

Below: Paul VI with the Anglican Primate Donald Coggan, during the historic meeting of
1977 in Rome, while adding their signatures to the final document of the talks.

hAQNTWi

?T le , con,exte oacumanfqt

if n esr pigs qu es ti on de

convertir Ics freros scpares

H. *_,! ,**_ “ 1,1 ^IliLrAlH A X .

[A UflEJiH — it kut Mat

RENCONTRE ENTRE CHRETIENS
ET MARXISTS EN ALtEMAGNE

'I K lUl I , 'lf 1 IICHSEE. ^ilui- ii i, v, , , nil- 1 * «-

■ t m ffBB " » ■ ■■

r jjjjtitfft I Ou? lit uni fe rtf Slnr

=AUL ill:

II EMIT
REIIHIR US

ri‘ vI'T^re ses conVK^
Paul VI revu a v olutit

dans nil _oean» - rig ^=s^

Tli R«nrd — lpt^mtn i in

udaism for Christian!

"rharle" pour prepare'; , /|f j ( . r dud,, m

.dialogue

dialogues

srfHfees etles manats -

s* fl i*H»T

On veut un rapprochement
entre chretiens et rnusulmom

.itmmL »■■ *

,B "-nl irr*

Vi a foi plus que i3fnais en j

DP/ 1 _

Above: A Mass in honor of Confucius and S. Thomas, in the Chinese Church of Formosa.
(From “Mondo e Missione, January, 1979).

Below: Paul VI and Dr. Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury.

«Love not the world,
nor the things that are in the world!

If any man love the world,
the charity of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world,
is the concupiscence of the flesh,
and the concupiscence of the eyes,
and the pride of life,

which is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away,
and the concupiscence thereof... »

(John 2: 15-17)

CHAPTER II

HIS “OPENING TO THE WORLD”

It is now clear that the “new Church” of Paul VI has broken
with the past:

«The religion of the God who became man has
met the religion of man who makes himself
God».

There is, by now, “an osmosis” between the Church and the
world 1 2 ; and that is, an inter-penetration; a reciprocal influence.

And yet, the Apostle St. John had written, instead, «The whole
world lieth in wickedness» 3 . And Jesus had said, «He that is not
with Me is against Me” 4 .

Even Leo XIII, in his encyclical “Humanum Genus”, had
written:

1 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

2 “Eucharistic Congress” of Pisa, June 7, 1965.

3 1 John 5, 19.

4 Matthew 12, 30.

«The race of man. . . separated into two diverse
and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly
contends for truth and virtue, the other of those
things which are contrary to virtue and to
truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth,
namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ... The
other is the kingdom of Satan» 5 .

But Paul VI, throughout his Pontificate, attempted to reconcile
these two irreconcilable things; hence his contradictions, his ambi-
guities, precisely on account of his... “Love to the world”.

«We have certainly intended to talk of the
severity of the Saints toward the ills of the
world. Many are still familiar with the books of
asceticism that contain a globally negative
judgment upon earthly corruption. But it is al-
so certain that we do live in a different spiritu-
al climate, having been invited, especially by
the recent Council, to bring to the modern
world an optimistic look towards its values, its
achievements... The celebrated Constitution
‘Gaudium et Spes’ is in its whole an encourage-
ment toward this new spiritual approach» 6 .

This utterance of Paul Vi’s would seem a clear invitation to
abandon “the severity of the Saints”, the “books of asceticism”,
in favor of this “new spiritual approach”, looking “with more op-
timism to the world”, in conclusion: to come to a positive judg-
ment “about the corruption in the world”. And this because we
live, today, in a “different spiritual climate”.

And so, Paul Vi’s mentality was one of “apertura al mondo”
(Opening to the World). It can also be demonstrated by reading the

5 Leo XIII, “Humanum Genus” 1884.

6 General audience, July 3, 1974.

texts of the “International Seminar”, organized at Brescia, by the
“Paul VI” Institute 7 .

Cardinal Poupard, in fact, in his introduction recalled a “ques-
tion” Paul VI was asking himself:

«What consciousness has the Church gained
about Herself, after twenty centuries of history
and after countless experiences and studies and
treatises?».

And here is the brief answer given by Montini himself:

«The Church is communion. It is the commu-
nion of the Saints».

“It seems to me - continued Cardinal Poupard - the specific
contribution of Paul VI at Vatican II Council and the elaboration of
its “Magna Charta” and the doctrinal Constitution “Lumen Gen-
tium” is this global vision of the Church, seen as a “Mistery of
communion”.

The original contribution of Pope Montini to the Council - con-
tinued the cardinal - was that of providing a theological synthesis
and conferring a cultural form on the Giovannean project of a

Church “in line” with the new times and “renewed” in Her spir-
ituality and in Her missionary drive”.

Even the extraordinary Synod on the Council, in its final report,
emphasized that “the ecclesiology of communion is the central
and fundamental idea in the documents of the Council”, and that
“it cannot be reduced into mere organizational or power-related
issues”.

«Therefore - continued Cardinal Poupard - the ecclesiology of
communion must generate in the Church a style of communion at all
levels, between faithful and priests, between priests and bishops, be-

7 It was founded with the precise purpose of promoting the “scientific” study (!)
of the figure of Pope Montini. It was held from September of 19-22, 1986. There
attended 140 scholars, historians and theologians from various parts of the world.

tween the bishops and the Pope. But even for the Church “ad ex-
tra”, this style of communion, that is, of “opening”, of respect
and understanding, will increasingly characterize the action of
the Church toward culture as a whole and toward all men, in-
cluding non-believers».

Even Jean Pierre Torrell, of the University of Friburg, in that
same “conversation”, at Brescia, said «The Church takes shape,
in this manner, as an incarnation lasting in time and as well as
eommunion».

Therefore, Pope Montini would have had an “opening to the
world” in continuous evolution (= relativism), and would have
wanted, for this, a new conception of a Church as “communion”
between all men of the Church as well as with those “ad extra”.

And so, this was the “original contribution,” Cardinal Poupard
saw in the Modernist Paul VI at Vatican II, with the crucial contri-
bution of the neo-Modemists.

Good for us that the above mentioned Cardinal also recalled that
Montini was very familiar with the French culture, which much con-
tributed to the formation of such a view of the Church. In fact, Mon-
tini had read and studied (?) their books: that of De Lubac: “Med-
itation Upon the Church”; that of Hamer: “The Church is Com-
munion”; that of Congar: “True and False Reform of the
Church”; that of Maritain: “The Church of Christ”; etc...

And so, that “new ecclesiology” of Montini’s came, as regular
“foreign merchandise”, from France. But now, this was nothing
new in a Montini whom, unprepared in theology - he never at-
tended a regular class in philosophy, or theology - adapted so
well to his “Modernist mind” already imbued with those Mod-
ernist ideas, having long frequented the drawing-room of Tommaso
Gallarati Scotti, a fiery advocate of Modernism in Italy, and hav-
ing had, for his favorite authors, a Maritain of the first hour, with
his socialistic conception, a Bernanos, subsidizer of the “interna-
tional brigades” during Spain’s Civil War - although aware of the
destroyed churches and of the thousands of Bishops, Priests, Monks
and Nuns massacred - a De Lubac, with his Catholicism reduced

8 We cite an example: as a cardinal, at Milan. For his “Mission of Milan”, in the

into a mere “humanism”, and so forth and so on. Authors, that is,
who afford us to say that the Montini’s “choices”, from priest to
Pope, were always consistent 8 !

And so to Paul VI, the “ecclesiology of communion” truly was
“as the incarnation lasting in time and as well as a communion”,

that is, a continuous evolution among all of its members and even
for those “ad extra”.

This concept of “Church-Communion” was thus that “original
contribution” attributable to Paul VI. And yet we would be tempt-
ed to observe that never was there less “communion” than today,
despite the ongoing chatter about it, not seldom out of turn. «There
often is, in this holy and marvelous word, a bogus sound, or how-
ever ambiguous, which reveals a use of convenience, and there-
fore biased. The “communion”, too, is subjected to polemic. It
serves a cause for which it was not born, and in front of which falls
into contradiction. There are the “theorists” of this “communion”:
those who distinguish it from the community; those who found it
with the community; those who finalize the one to the other» 9 .

More clear and to the point, on this subject “Church- Commu-
nion”, on this “new ecclesiology”, that is, is Cardinal Ratzinger, in
his “Ratzinger Report” 10 , under the title: “At the Root of the
Crisis: the Idea of Church”. Writes the Cardinal:

«My impression is that, tacitly, one is losing the
authentically Catholic reality of the “Church”,
without rejecting it expressly».

Now, would this be, therefore, the “original contribution” of
Pope Montini to the Council? Concealing the “mystery” - “com-
munion”, in the fashion of Loisy, the Father of Modernism, in “Au-

Fall of 1957, Montini called, as speakers, don Mazzolari, Father Balducci, Fa-
ther Turoldo, Cardinal Lercaro and the like. (“Paul VI - Images of a Pontifi-
cate”, A.A.V.V., Logos Editions, Rome 1978, p. 57).

9 Monsignor Brunero Gherardini: “The Church Arch of the Alliance. Her Gen-
esis, Her Paradox, Her Powers, Her Service”.

10 Joseph Ratzinger, “Report on the Faith”, Chapter III, p. 45-54.

tor d’un petit livre”, pretending to be refuting Harnack... and as
the Modernists are still doing today.

«This term of “Church- Communion” is an “er-
ror” - continues Cardinal Ratzinger 11 - an error
that led to the practical negation of the authen-
tic concept of “obedience”, because the concept
of an authority that has Her legitimacy (focus
or center) in God, is rejected».

Hence the Cardinal concludes, by saying:

«Real reform (or “renovation”) is not to strive
to put up new facades, but rather (contrary to
what certain ecclesiologies think), real ‘RE-
FORM’ is to endeavor to detach ourselves, to
the greatest extent possible, from what is ours,
so that what appears is that which is His, of
Christ. It is a truth the Saints knew well, as
they in fact reformed the Church profoundly,
not by predisposing “plans” for new structures,
but by reforming themselves» 12 .

It is precisely what Paul VI failed to do, when he chose instead
to order “new structures”, arbitrary, over his brainy conceptions,

which substituted the very “Constitution” wanted by Jesus and
then clearly expressed in His Gospels.

***

After which, it is not longer difficult to understand the reason
for his opening toward the modern world and his “sincere love
to his time”. And it is no use asking oneself what Paul VI intended
by “world”, for he certainly did not intend the material universe,

11 As above, p. 49.

12 Idem.

with its sky, its land, plants and animals, etc., but rather, by “world”
he positively intended the number of men with their own ideas, cus-
toms, way of life. Hence his “opening to the world” could but be
that which, in the New Testament, particularly in St. Paul and St.
John, in the entire Patristic literature and in the writings of all
of the Saints has a contemptuous meaning, since the world is the
“kingdom of sin”, as opposed, that is, to the “Kingdom of God”;
hence the “spirit of the world” is in conflict with the “Spirit of
God” 13 ; hence the “elements of the world” are like “bondages”
keeping man tied down to sin 14 .

Now, if the devil is the “prince of this world” 15 , the Kingdom
of Jesus Christ cannot be of this world 16 ; rather, Jesus is hated by
this “world” 17 . Consequently, like Jesus, even the Christian is not
of this world, for in him dwells the Spirit of Truth which the world
cannot receive 18 .

That is why, in his First Letter, St. John Evangelist says: “I

write unto you, little children... Love not the world, neither the
things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love
of the Father is not in him; for all that is in the world, the lust
of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not

of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away and
the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” 19 .

And St. Paul writes: “But God forbid that I should glory, save
in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is
crucified unto me, and I unto the world 20 .

And I could go on for quite a while, as the word “world” in the
New Testament is a theological term in the strict sense of the word:

13 1 Corinthians 2.12-2; 2 Corinthians 7, 10.

14 Galatians 4. 3. 8; Colossians 2. 20.

15 John. 12. 31, 16. 11; 2 Corinthians 4, 4.

16 John 8-23; 16. 28; 18, 36.

17 John 7, 7; 15. 18.

18 John 15. 19; 17, 14 - John 2. 15.

19 I John 2. 12-17.

20 Galatians 6, 14.

21 John 16, 33.

“but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” 21 ; “For what-
soever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the vic-
tory that overcometh the world, even our Faith” 22 . Supernatural
Faith, that is! He that lacks it “loves the world” and the world loves
him in return.

And Jesus reaffirms this detachment from the world in His
prayer to the Father for His Apostles, too: “I have given them Thy
word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of
the world, even as I am not of the world” 23 . Thus “Opening to
the World”, in the theological-Christian language, can only mean
“Opening to Satan”, “Prince of This World”.

Now, this is the very essence of Modernism. It is the Mod-
ernists, in fact, who call for a Church opened to the world
through integral humanism, through the ignorance of the super-
natural, through the reduction of the four Gospels and of the whole
New Testament into a popular, profane book, almost a myth, born of
the conscience of the early Christian communities. What to say,
then, of Paul VI, whose mind was certainly immersed in a “spiritu-
al climate” quite different from the evangelical one, which reads:
“Woe unto the world because of offences!” 24 , while, on the con-
trary, Paul VI did away from that “severity”, from those “negative
judgments” of Christ against the world?

At the outset of the “Second Session” of the Council, in fact, he
had said already:

«The world must be aware that the Church re-
gards it with profound sympathy, with genuine
admiration, sincerely disposed not to subdue it,
but to serve it; not to loathe it, but to value it; not
to condemn it, but to sustain it and rescue it» 25 .

Even these words betray the “mission” of the Church of

22 I John 5. 4.

23 John 17, 14 and V, 16.

24 Matthew 18, 7.

25 Opening Address, 2d Session, September 29, 1963.

Christ, which is to place the men of this world under the yoke of
Christ. And then, is it the duty of Bishops and Priests, perhaps, “to
give value” to the world? Man is after earthly values on his own,
while the Shepherds of souls must preach, “opportune et impor-
tune”, that those human values are a nothingness before God and
eternity, as the Apostle Paul had already preached: “I count all
things... but dung, that I may win Christ 26 ; that Christ who had
said: “Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he
hath, he cannot be my disciple” 27 .

Paul VI, instead, goes on to repeat:

«Our testimony is a sign of the approach of the
Church toward the modern world: an approach
made up of attention, of understanding, of ad-
miration, and of friendship* 28 .

A language back to front, therefore, of that used by St. James:

“know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with
God? 29 .

Even at the opening of Session IV of the Council, Paul VI has
said:

«The Council offers the Church, and Us espe-
cially, a comprehensive view of the world: will
the Church, and will we be able to do anything
but to look at the world and to love it? This
look at the world shall be one of the fundamen-
tal acts of the Session that is about to begin:
once again and above all, love...» 30 .

26 Philippians 3, 8.

27 Luke 14, 33.

28 Special Audience, June 8, 1964 - Actes Pontificaux, Bellamin Editions (MT1),
n. 139, p. 21.

29 Jacob 4, 4.

30 Council’s IV Session, September 14, 1965.

Words that sound like a capitulation of a Church before the
world. But Paul Vi’s excitement grows unchecked:

«A wave of affection and admiration flowed out
from the Council over the modern world of hu-
manity... The modern world’s values were not
only respected but also honored (!!), its efforts
sustained, its aspirations purified and
blessed» 31 .

Now, this “brimming over with love and admiration” for the
world, whose “values” he “honors”, goes also counter to the Scrip-
tures, which say: “Love not the world, neither the things that are
in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father
is not in him” 32 .

Nevertheless, Paul VI continued to disseminate his “love” for
the world, presenting the reconciliation of the Church as a absolute
evolution, an enrichment of the Catholic doctrine:

«It seemed interesting to us to note some
“moreaux” aspects of the Council, which we
might define as characteristic, and, consequent-
ly, new and modern... One of these teachings,
which changes our way of thinking, and, even
more, our practical conduct, regards the view
we Catholics must hold of the world in which
we live. How does the Church regard the world
today? This vision, the Council has broadened
to us... broadened to the point of changing sub-
stantially our judgment and approach before
the world. The doctrine of the Church, in fact,
has grown richer with a more thorough knowl-
edge of Her being and of Her mission» 33 .

31 Council’s Closing Address, December 7, 1965.

32 I John 2, 15.

33 Audience of March 5, 1969.

Hence to Paul VI, the Catholic approach before the World
should “change”, “broaden”, leaving of Tradition but a few marks
of paint. He himself reiterates it:

«... The framework of this encounter between
Church and World remains that of the Gospel.

As a consequence, its fundamental theological
and moral principles are the traditional and
constitutional framework of Christian morality.

But, in addition, the Church accepts, recognizes
and serves the world such as it presents itself to
Her today. She does not reject the formulas of
the synthesis Church- world of the past... but...
the Church, in Christ and like Christ, loves the
world of today. She lives, She speaks, and She
acts for it...» 34 .

Here, Paul VI is saying that, after the Council, the Church rec-
ognizes, yes, the eternal conflict between Gospel and World, but,
“in addition”, She similarly recognizes the new approach, op-
posed to Tradition, and that is to say, She “recognizes, serves, and
loves the world”, “such as the world presents itself today”.

Doublespeak, that is. Two irreconcilable approaches. All that is
left to do is to repeat the verdict of Christ: “No man can serve two
masters” 35 . That is to say: either one loves Jesus and His Gospel, or
one loves the World, loathing Jesus and His Gospel.

But Paul VI goes on to say:

«This approach (of alliance “Church- World”)
must become ‘characteristic’ in the Church of
today; here, She stirs and draws in Her heart
new apostolic energies (!!). She does not seek
Her own way, She does not places Herself out-
side the existential situation of the world, but

34 Idem.

35 Matthew 6, 24.

She shares spiritually... with Her patient and
accommodating charity... that charity that
“bears anything, believes anything, hopes any-
thing, endures anything” 36 » 37 .

Here you have a typical example of how one could make a
wicked use of the “Sacred Texts”. Under the cover that “charity
pardons anything... puts up with anything...” one invokes toler-
ance toward the vices of the world, too. Not so did Jesus, howev-
er, when to the Pharisees, proud and duplicitous, He hollered: “O
generation of vipers... Whited Sepulchers” 38 . Sure, God is mer-
ciful toward the man that falls because of his weakness, but then re-
pents, whereas He is terrible toward the pride and sensuality per-
sisting in the world.

Paul VI, instead, in the same Audience, had said:

«This supposes “another mind”, which we may
similarly qualify as “new”: the Church frankly
admits the values proper of temporal realities;

She recognizes, that is, that the world holds
riches that he realizes in undertakings, he ex-
presses in the realm of thought and arts, that he
is deserving of praises, etc., in his being, in his
becoming, in his own domain, even if he were
not baptized, if he were a profane, a layman, a
secular... “The Church - says the Council -
recognizes all that is good in the social dy-
namism of today” 39 » 40 .

Hence, the Church should become “neutral”, and, therefore,
“praise the profane, lay, secular world”. But then, do the severe

36 I Corinthians 13, 4-7.

37 Audience of March 5, 1969.

38 Matthew 12, 34; Matthew 23, 27-33.

39 “Gaudium et Spes”, n. 42.

40 Audience of March 5, 1969.

words of St. Paul: «If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let
him be Anathema» 41 , still bear any import today? And what conse-
quence does the even graver and decisive Word of Jesus, carry:

«For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world,
and lose his own soul?» 42 .

There is matter for reflection. But reflection was also Paul Vi’s
obligation. And why on earth, then, would he not remember that:
“Woe unto me, if I preach not the gospel ! 43 of St. Paul?

But, perhaps, to Paul VI, that traditional teaching had become a
negative teaching, one deserving of discredit.

«This approach, full of caution and boldness,
which the Church manifests today toward the
present world, must modify and shape our
mind of faithful Christians, still immersed in
the whirling of modern profane life... We must
explain, with much caution and precision, the
difference between the positive vision of the
worldly values the Church is presenting to Her
faithful today, and the negative vision, without
annulling what of true is in the latter, that the
wisdom and asceticism of the Church have so
many times taught us with regard to the con-
tempt of the world... But we wish to conclude
making it our own and recommending this op-
timistic vision the Council is presenting to us,
about the contemporary world... » 44 .

These are more of his... fraudulent words!

“The wisdom and asceticism of the Church” - said he, in fact
- has taught us, for centuries, “a negative vision” of the world-
ly values. Today, while not denying “what is true” in that “con-

41 I Corinthians 16, 22.

42 Matthew 16, 26.

43 Corinthians 9, 16.

44 Audience of March 5, 1969.

tempt of the world”, the Church presents to us a “differentiat-
ed” vision of the world; rather, a “positive vision”.

Regrettably, this obsession of his became also his line of pas-
toral conduct, as he appointed, for example, the Bishops in conso-
nance with his own mindset. Cardinal Ratzinger confirms it in his
book, “Rapporto sulla Fede”:

«In the first years following Vatican II Council,
the candidate to the episcopate seemed to be a
priest primarily “opened to the world”, and, in-
deed, this prerequisite topped the list. After the
1968 Movement, with the worsening of the cri-
sis, it was discovered, not seldom through bitter
experiences, that what was needed were bishops
open to the world, and yet concurrently capable
of standing up to the world and to its harmful
tendencies, in order to heal them, contain them,
alert the faithful against them. Many bishops
have harshly experienced, in their own dioce-
ses, how times have really changed in comparison
with the not-so-critical (an euphemism?) optimism
of the immediate post-Council» 45 .

What then? Wasn’t Paul VI, too, supposed to be aware of the ir-
reducible conflict between the two visions of “Christ” and
“World”? And why, then, his stubbornness in continually reiterat-
ing that, today, there is instead a blissful alliance between them, al-
most ignoring that, on the contrary, there are no real values in the
“worldly realities” which St. Paul categorically “counts as
dung” 46 .

Nonetheless, in that “Conversation” at Brescia’s “Paul VI” In-
stitute, it was insisted upon the continuity of John XXIII’s Pontifi-
cate and that of Paul VI, and the opening to the world. Cardinal
Poupard - as we already mentioned - underscored that «the origi-

45 Joseph Ratzinger, “Report on the Faith”, p. 65 and subsequent.

46 Philippians 3, 8.

nal contribution of Pope Montini to the Council was that of pro-
viding a theological synthesis (?!) as well as conferring a cultural
form upon John XXIII’s project of a Church in line with the
new times, and renewed in Her effort».

And the Jesuit Father, Professor Giacomo Martina, reported
that «Paul Vi’s concern lies... above all, in emphasizing the ele-
ment that characterizes and ensures the continuity between the two
pontificates: the opening toward the modern world and the sin-
cere love to their own time».

Of this “mens” [“mind” or “mindset,”] there was also a confir-
mation in that other Convention, promoted by the Marche Region
Institute “J. Maritain” on the theme: “The Road to Vatican IP’.
The current Secretary Monsignor Camillo Ruini attended the
“Convention” in representation of the Italian Episcopal Conference.
Well, «The theme - wrote Baldoni - focused particularly on the
figure of Pope Roncalli and on the opening to the world, on the
fact that this exceptional Pope had just wanted to look out the
window».

Monsignor Capovilla, however, saw to it to reveal - for the first
time - to «have seen the face of the Pontiff furrowed with tears,
on the verge of his death, on account of the fact that some were
affirming that he had set into motion a process that would not
have been for the good of the Church»!

The “weeping” of Pope Roncalli, demonstrates he had not fore-
seen the negative effects of his decisions, of his apostolic actions
(!!) made without consulting his Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardi-
ni, or any of the Cardinals responsible for the various jurisdictional
Congregations, particularly that of the Holy Office, whereas he paid
heed, of preference, to his troubadour-counselor, his seditious per-
sonal Secretary, Monsignor Capovilla, so much so that Cardinal
Tardini came to offer his resignation from his post, and Cardinal
Siri, then head of the CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference), protested
with the Pope for Monsignor Capovilla’s unusual intrusiveness and
rash behavior, although to no avail 47 .

47 Pope Montini, instead, rewarded that hypnotizer, at Venice, of Cardinal Ron-
calli, and then of Pope John XXIII, for his services, appointing him Archbishop

Paul VI, however, after the “Pacem in Terris”, flung open the
doors of the Council to his “apertura al mondo” (opening to the
world). One has only to read the “Gaudium et Spes” to dispel any
doubt. His “love for the world”, his “cult of man”, were but a
counter-altar to the straightforward affirmation of Jesus, “My king-
dom is not of this world” 48 .

***

Sure, it was a real utopia that nourished his agitated soul, his
“playing Hamlet”, his obsession of reconciling, at any cost, the
Church with the “modern world”, ie. with modern philosophy, sub-
jective and immanent, and “modern culture”, steeped in subjec-
tivism and immanentence. Surely it wasn’t a guiltless action, for it
was a path already blocked off by the Magisterium of the Past, with
the “Mirari Vos” (1832) of Gregory XVI, with “Sillabo” (1864) of
Pius IX, with “Pascendi” (1907) of St. Pius X, with “Humani
Generis” (1950) of Pius XII, which firmly condemns all these
“apertures” and, consequently, even those false “restorations”
that suffocated the perennial philosophy, the Scholastic theology,
and the dogmatic Tradition of the Church.

It is the “new theology” that has determined the crisis that par-
alyzes the life of the Church, as it is permeated - we repeat with the
“Humani Generis” - with “false opinions that threaten to sub-
vert the foundations of the Catholic doctrine”.

Sure, it is not easy to fathom, in these few pages, his thought,
enveloped in a language often times vague and obscure, which ren-
ders it incomprehensible, although providing “pictures” of apparent
respectability, which conceal, however, dissembled errors and ambi-
guities.

What is clear, however, was always his “cult of man”, his “love
for the world”, which nourished his “chimeras”, specifically:

- Humanity is “marching” toward a new world, toward an

of Chieti, whence he was kicked out, however, by the local Authorities and hasti-
ly transferred to the Basilica of Loreto.

48 John 18. 36.

ideal society in which freedom, brotherhood, and equality shall
reign; in which the perfect respect of “Man’s Rights”, and the
“Great Democracy” shall be achieved, fulfilling the dream of the
French Revolution.

- “Universal peace” shall rule, thanks to the principles of nat-
ural morals, accessible to all. All that is needed is to stir and foster

“the conscience of humanity”.

- All the forces of the men of goodwill (including the “re-
formed” Church) must unite to form this “new world” and this
“new ideal society”.

- The Church, however, in this construction of the “worldly
paradise”, should have a mere “supplementary” role, as She
would be complementing the role of the “United Nations”. In any
case, the means of the natural order would stand above the super-
natural order.

But the “glory of God” and the salvation of the souls”, is a

theme Paul VI, in his writings and speeches, has nearly forgotten.

«It is the leavening of the Gospel that has
aroused and continues to arouse in man’s heart
the need for irrepressible dignity» 49 .

Hence to Paul VI, the Gospel seems to be a mere instrument,
almost the “pretext” for a sort of world political revolution that
must lead to the age of the Kingdom of “Man’s Rights”, pro-
claimed by the French Revolution of 1789.

In fact, in an address to the “Diplomatic Corps”, Paul VI had al-
ready hinted at his belief:

«We have trust in human reason... One day,
reason will be the last word» 50 .

Luckily, that day shall never come. And yet ever since that 1789
this trust in human reason is being preached. Nothing is more lu-

49 “Populorum Progressio”, 26 March 1967, n. 32.

50 “Le Courrier de Rome”, April 25, 1970.

dicrous, however, since this human reason has been severed from its
root, God, and placed at the service of the baseness of human na-
ture. That is why any catastrophe is and will be possible.

But Paul VI, even in this other statement, said:

«The Church attempts to adapt to the lan-
guage, customs, and tendencies of the men of
our time, all absorbed by the rapidity of mate-
rial evolution and so demanding for their indi-
vidual particularities. This opening is in the
spirit of the Church... » 51 .

Pius X, blessed predecessor of Paul VI, on May 27, 1914, -
warning a group of new cardinals on adapting a certain spirit of
adaptation to the world, had said: «We are, alas, in a time in which
certain ideas of reconciliation of the Faith with the modern spir-
it are all too easily accepted; ideas that lead the way farther
than what one might be led to think, not only toward a weaken-
ing, but also toward a loss of the Faith... ». But Paul VI, perhaps,
no longer remembered that Christianity has its center in the Cross of
Christ... as he followed in the footsteps of Rousseau, who affirmed
that “man is good”, which clashes entirely with the Christian doc-
trine that affirms, on the contrary, “man was born a sinner”,
hence, as Jesus says, «None is good, save one, that is, God. None
is good but God alone» 52 .

But then, how is Paul Vi’s approach of “opening to the world”,
steadfast and stubborn to the point of saying that

«... It is our duty to promote the formation of a
mentality and practice which would best suit
the true moral progress of man and society* 53 ?

And yet, even the Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, posed the

51 Speech at Milan, September 1958.

52 Luke 18, 19.

53 “L’Osservatore Romano” of October 22, 1970.

question, on that “opening to the world”, on the part not only of
Protestantism of any chapter, but also of post-Conciliar Roman
Catholicism:

«With the windows opened onto the world - he
wrote - haven’t our “Protestants”, as well as the
last Council, gone too far? When too many win-
dows are built and opened, the house ceases to be
a house... the concept of “Church” could be
broadened to the extent that it would fade out into
the dark haze of an unconscious Christianity» 54 .

Paul VI, however, continued to pursue a mission rather temporal
than spiritual, in order to edify, in fact, that “New World”, that
“ideal society”, that “great universal brotherhood”.

«A11 of us, Churches included, are involved in
the birth of a “new world”. God... in His love
for man, organizes the movements of history
for the progress of humanity and in view of a
new earth and new heavens, wherein justice
shall be perfect» 55 .

And again:

«The Catholic Church urges all of Her sons to
undertake, together with all men of goodwill of
every race and nation, this peaceful crusade for
the well-being of man... in order to “establish a
global community, united and brotherly» 56 .

Words in the wind! And a dream, it was, that “progress of hu-
manity” of his which in reality is ever quaking with revolutionary

54 Karl Barth, “Renewal and Unity of the Church”, Rome, 1969, Silva Editore.

55 Address to the Australians, November 30, 1970.

56 Ibidem.

wars, with all sorts of hatred, as if taking flight from reality and
from the Christian duty of carrying the inevitable cross of injustice
«It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him
through whom they come» 57 . And this is because evil, injustice,
and suffering shall always dwell with us. That is why the Church
has always preached the extraordinary value of suffering, continua-
tion of the redemption of Christ: «I fill up those things that are
wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body,
which is the Church» 58 .

As for that “peaceful crusade for the well-being of a new
world”, then, the Cross of Christ should give way to the Masonic
movement, which similarly preaches a global brotherhood.

Therefore, Paul VI insists:

isolation is no longer an option. The hour has
come of the great solidarity among men, to-
ward the establishment of a global and frater-
nal community* 59 .

Could one not think, at this point: if the whole world has to
change, should religion not change, too? If between the reality of
life and Christianity - especially Catholicism - there is disagree-
ment, misunderstanding, indifference, mutual hostility, how could
Christianity claim to have retained any influence upon today’s life?
Is that why Vatican II called for “reforms” and “revisions”? But
why, then, did Jesus say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
my words shall not pass away”? 60 . And if that is how things stand,
the Gospel shall always be the same, regardless of world changes.
And the doctrine of Jesus shall be always “A sign which shall be
contradicted” 61 .

But Paul VI continued to believe that it were possible to put to-

67 Luke 17, 1.

58 Colossians 1, 24.

59 Address to the Australians - D. C. January 3, 1971, n. 1577.

60 Matthew 24, 35.

61 Luke 2, 34.

gether “a pagan world” and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps
he believed the influence of Christianity depended upon a reforma-
tion “in the sense of the world”, even if this reform of the Church
and its doctrine, in order to avoid offending the sensibility of the
world, would mean “apostasy” - a “change of religion”!

«Know ye not that the friendship of the world
is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will
be a friend of the world is the enemy of God» 62 .

And that, even Paul VI should have known! Rather than fancying
a Masonic-like humanitarian and social philanthropic organization.

Quite the contrary!

«The Church, although respecting the jurisdic-
tion of the Nations, must offer Her help to pro-
mote a global humanism, I mean to say, an in-
tegral development of man as a whole and of
each and every man... Placing Herself at the
forefront of social action, She must direct all of
Her efforts to sustaining, encouraging, and dri-
ving the initiatives that operate toward the in-
tegral promotion of man»®.

Hence, to Paul VI, the Church must no longer focus upon the
evangelization of the peoples for the salvation of the souls, but
rather “spare no effort” toward the promotion of a “full human-
ism”, possibly taking up the vanguard of the social action.

The encyclical “Populorum Progressio” was precisely a push
toward that mindset of his:

«The fight against poverty, urgent and neces-
sary, is not enough. It is a question of building
a human community wherein men can live tru-

62 James 4, 4.

63 D. C. September 20, 1970, n. 1576, p. 1112-1114.

ly human lives, free from discrimination on ac-
count of race, religion or nationality, free from
servitude to other men or to natural forces they
cannot yet control satisfactorily. It involves
building a human community wherein freedom
is not an idle word, wherein the needy Lazarus
can sit down with the rich man at the same
banquet table» 64 .

Building a world, that is, wherein every man might live a fully
“human” life.

«They strive to learn more, and have more so
that they might increase their personal worth.

And yet, at the same time, a large number of
them live amid conditions that frustrate these
legitimate desires» 65 .

Perhaps here, again, Paul VI overlooked Jesus’ maxim, when he
said, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” 66 .

But Paul Vi’s utopia rested upon his faith on man.

«We have trust in man. We believe in the store
of goodness in everyone’s heart. We know the
motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress, and
brotherhood that lie at the root of so many
wonderful undertakings, and even of so many
protests and, unfortunately, of violence at
times. It is up to you not to flatter man but to
make him aware of his worth and capabili-
ties...^ 7 .

64 “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47.

65 “Populorum Progressio”, n. 6.

66 Luke 18, 25.

67 To the journalists, Sydney, Australia, December 2, 1970.

His words induce us to reflect upon the Words of the Scriptures:

«Cursed is the strong man who trusts in man and has set up
flesh as his arm» 68 .

On the contrary, in Paul Vi’s writings always transpires, between
the lines, his profound conviction that man, even without the Grace
of God, by his own strength alone, can improve his human venture,
establishing that global brotherhood that would wipe out every war,
every poverty, and every injustice. Sure, Paul VI does not deny that
God is necessary in this process of improvement of man, but it is
clear that his accent is not placed on this point, the only essential
one. He puts his emphasis, rather, on the possibility of man as such.

«When all is said and done, - says he - if man
can, at length, do nothing without man, one can
(instead), with him, do anything and succeed in
anything, so much so that are indeed spirit and
heart to first carry off the real victories» 69 .

Here, too, Paul VI forgets what Jesus said: “For without me ye
can do nothing” 70 . And yet to him it does not seem to work this
way. In his speeches, numerous, about “peace”, a call to a “uni-
versal human conscience”, or to some “principles of natural
morals”, are never wanting.

«Isn’t peace impossible; are man’s powers suf-
ficient to secure it and maintain it? We would
refrain, at this time, from offering exhaustive
answers to this anguishing question which calls
into play the most arduous theses of history’s
thinking, to conclude merely with a word of
Christ: “The things which are impossible with
men are possible with God” 71 » 72 .

68 Jeremiah 17, 5.

69 Address to FAO, November 16, 1970.

70 John 15, 5.

71 Luke 18, 27.

72 October 4, 1966.

Here, too, however, Paul VI eludes the question, since he refus-
es to say whether or not God be necessary to the issue of world
peace. On January 1, 1968, in fact, in his “Message” for the “Day
of Peace”, he had said:

«The subjective foundation of Peace is a new
spirit that must animate coexistence between
peoples, a new outlook on man... Much
progress must yet be made to render this out-
look universal and effective; a new pedagogy
must educate the new generations to reciprocal
respect between nations, to brotherhood be-
tween peoples... One cannot legitimately speak
of peace where no recognition or respect is giv-
en to its solid foundations: sincerity, justice and
love in the relations between states... between
citizens..; the freedom of individuals and peo-
ples, in all its expressions... ».

So that’s Paul Vi’s idea of peace: a “new spirit”, a “new
mind”, and a “new pedagogy”. And here are the “foundations”: to

give a “new ideological education”.

«Peace is the logical aim of the present world; it
is the destiny of progress... There is need, to-
day... A new ideological education, education
for peace... Let us realize, men, our brothers,
the greatness of this futuristic vision, and let us
courageously undertake the first program: to
educate ourselves for Peace» 73 .

And furthermore:

«Before being a policy, peace is a spirit... It
forms, it takes hold of the consciences, in this

73 Peace Day Message, November 30, 1969.

philosophy of life each has to build for himself,
as a light for his steps upon the paths of the
world and in the experiences of life. That
means, dearest brothers and sons, that peace
requires an education. We affirm it, here, by
the altar of Christ, as we celebrate the Holy
Mass» 74 .

The light, therefore, guiding man’s steps, is no longer the Christ
who said: «I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall
not walk in darkness» 75 : it is no longer this “philosophy of life”,
Paul VI wanted. Said he, in fact:

«One must succeed and banish war; it is human
convenience demanding it» 76 .

Hence man should repress vengeance, sacrifice his egoism, con-
vert his hatred, in the name of this “human convenience demand-
ing it”. Downright ludicrous!

And yet, Paul VI insists:

«Although difficult, it is indispensable (howev-
er), to acquire an authentic conception of
peace... Peace is a most human thing. If we
seek from where it really comes, we discover
that it sinks its roots in the loyal sense of man
(!!). A peace that is not born of the real cult of
Man, is not essentially a peace» 77 .

That’s it! “True peace” would thus be coming from the “Cult
of Man”!

74 Peace Day Allocution, January 1, 1970.

7 5 John 8, 12.

76 Peace Day Allocution, February 1, 1970.

77 December 16, 1971.

«We wish to give meaning to our lives . Life is
worth the meaning we give to it, the direction
we impart to it, the end we direct it to. What is
the end? It is peace. Peace is a beautiful thing,
yet difficult... It is the fruit of great struggles,
of great plans, and, most of all, it is the fruit of
justice: If you want Peace, work for Justice» 78 .

But if peace is founded upon justice, what is justice founded up-
on?

«Minds must be disarmed if we effectively wish
to stop the recourse to arms which strike bod-
ies. It is necessary to give to peace, that is to say
to all men, the spiritual roots of a common
form of thought and love... This interiorization
of peace is true humanism, true civilization.
Fortunately it has already begun. It is maturing
as the world develops... The world is progress-
ing towards its unity» 79 .

What an illusion, poor Paul VI! Is, perhaps, the “world march-
ing toward his unity today?“ Wars are up, conflicts have intensi-
fied, and guerrilla warfare is bloodying the population...

And then, that his “common denominator” that provides a
“common way of thinking and loving”, to him it would no longer
be the Gospel of Christ, “Way, Truth, and Life” 80 , but that “civi-
lized conscience” that would make the “Charter” of “Man’s
Rights” rule anywhere.

«... What is our message? We need, above all,
the moral weapons, which give strength and

78 Peace Day Allocution, January 1, 1972.

79 Peace Day Allocution, February 1, 1975.

80 John 14, 6.

prestige to international law; the weapon,
starting with the compliance of agreements* 81 .

Now, once again Paul VI gives pre-eminence to human means.
Let us go back, therefore, to his incredible address of October 4,
1965 at the United Nations. Was it not, perhaps, a recital of his
“Creed” in the “Religion of Man?” Let us read again those “pas-
sages” that aroused not a little amazement:

«Our message - said he - is meant to be, first of
all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty
Institution... We bring to this organization the
suffrage of our recent Predecessors, that of the
entire Catholic Episcopate, and our own, con-
vinced as we are, that this organization repre-
sents the obligatory path of modern civilization
and of world peace... The peoples of the earth
turn to the United Nations as the last hope of
concord and peace. We presume to present
here, together with our own, their tribute to
honor and of hope» 82 .

Every person that had retained a minimal Christian sense, must
have protested and criticized that profession of faith in an Atheis-
tic and Masonic Organization, which Paul VI went as far as de-
fine an “obligatory path” and “last hope of peace”...

And that, he repeated in his other message addressed to
U’ Thant, then Secretary General of the UN, on the occasion of the
25th anniversary of that organization:

«Once again, on this day, we wish to repeat
what we had the honor to proclaim on October
4, 1965, to the audience of your Assembly: This
organization represents the obligatory path of

81 Peace Day Allocution, November 16, 1975.

82 Address to the UN, October 4, 1965.

modern civilization and of world peace... If the
breeding grounds of violence are always on the
rise... The consciousness of humanity affirms it-
self, with like occurrence, increasingly stronger
on this privileged forum where... Men recover
their inalienable common trait: the human in
man... Thus, we renew our confidence that your
organization would be able to respond to the im-
mense hope of a brotherly global community,
where anyone might experience a truly human
life» 83 .

I repeat: it is a new profession of faith in the UN and in man,

whereas the Scriptures tell us: “Blessed is that man that maketh
the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud... 84 .

But there, at the UN, it wasn’t certainly Peter to have spoken.
For Peter, authentic Vicar of Christ, would not certainly “kneel
down” before the pride of Man, incarnated in that Masonic Organi-
zation that wants to run the world without God.

Paul VI, however, went on saying:

«Beware, dear friends, that we are ready, today,
to deliver you a message of hope. Not only is the
cause of man not lost, but also it is in a privi-
leged and safe situation (?!). The great ideas
(you may include the Gospel, if so you wish) that
are like the beacons of the modern world shall
not die out. The unity of the world shall be ac-
complished. The dignity of the human person
shall be recognized in its actuality and not only
formally... The unjust social inequalities shall
be suppressed. The relations between the peo-
ples shall be founded upon peace, reason, and

88 October 4, 1970.
84 Psalm 40, 4.

brotherhood... This is not a dream, or utopia,
neither is it a myth: it is evangelical realism* 85 .

It feels like a dream! A Pope, Paul VI, announcing a world
without suffering, without the Cross! And that would be nothing less
than “evangelical realism”. The Words of Jesus spring to mind:

«Get thee behind me, Satan... Thou art a scan-
dal unto me: for thou savourest not the things
that be of God» 86 .

Words Jesus told Peter, himself, as he did not want Him to suf-
fer the Passion. And what also comes to mind are the words St. Pius
X wrote in his “Letter on the Sillon”:

« Jesus did not announce for future society the
reign of an ideal happiness from which suffer-
ing would be banished; but, by His lessons and
by His example, He traced the path of the hap-
piness which is possible on earth and of the per-
fect happiness in Heaven: the royal way of the
Cross. These are teachings that it would be
wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in or-
der to win eternal salvation; these are eminent-
ly social teachings, and they show in Our Lord
Jesus Christ something quite different from an
inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism* 87 .

Clear and doctrinal words that crush all of the fleeting sociolog-
ical follies of Pope Paul Vi’s.

85 Easter Message, 1971.

86 Matthew 16, 23.

87 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 42.

“LIBERTY - EQUALITY - BROTHERHOOD”

«You are yourself God, Pope and King. Your reason is the only rule
of Truth, the only key to the science and politics. You have to under-
stand and interpret our holy enterprise as follows: “liberty, equality, fra-
ternity”.

FREEDOM means:

- Independence, unlimited (...) free from authority.

- Independence of spirit (...) or limitation by any dogma.

- Independence of the will... that recognizes neither King nor Pope
nor God

- Independence of the personality, which has broken all the chains...
earth, sky (...) for its complete emancipation.

And freedom, as leverage, and human passions, as a base that de-
molishes forever the king and the Priests...

EQUALITY means:

- Equality of property...

- Equality of fortunes, with the proportionate balance of wages with
the abolition of the right of inheritance, with the confiscation...

- Equality of individuals, with solidarity, with equal enjoyment to its
own production solidarity.

With Equality as leverage and human appetites as a foothold, we’ll
see disappear forever, Silver Aristocracy, implacable executioner of
the human race.

BROTHERHOOD means:

- Brotherhood in Freemasonry forms a State within a State with an
independent media unknown to the State.

- Brotherhood in Freemasonry forms a State against a State (...) more

- Brotherhood in Freemasonry, to constitute a higher State against
State...

With Brotherhood as leverage, and human hatred as a base, Para-
sitism and armed Repression will disappear forever... ».

(Secret Instruction of Leaders Incognito to General Garibaldi)

Above: The Jesuit and dancer Saju George with the ornaments of an Indian ritual dance.
Below: A group of “worker priests” in their meeting in Serramazzone - Modena (Italy).

Above: Three Dominican Sisters (from left: Sister Kathleen Corr, Sister Mary Templeton,
Sr. Toscano Lenon, headmaster of the “School of St. Nicholas”) receiving an award of mer-
it during the National Congress of Women held at Green Point and Williamsburg. (Ed.
Wilkinson photo).

On bottom left: “Sister beautician” Sister Ida, who is a student incognito of the “beauti-
cian” Parisian Jean Destree, pictured at work in her monastery. Here she is dealing with a
lay customer.

Bottom right: The “Sister Policeman”. Her name is Sister Mary Cornelia, of the Sisters
of Divine Providence” Granite City (Illinois). She is a “full time” policewoman. The boys
call her “Sister Fuzz.” (UPI Telephoto).

Right: Father Lawrence
Craig, surrounded by “glam-
our” Sixth Class of Saint
Mary’s College, Middles-
brough (England). Fr. Craig
was assigned to the singing
part of owner of a nightclub
in the recent [Musical] pro-
duction “Sweet Charity”!

«Many who belong
to the ranks of the priesthood itself,
who, animated by a false zeal for the Church,
lacking the solid safeguards of
philosophy and theology,
nay more, thoroughly imbued with the
poisonous doctrines
taught by the enemies of the Church,
and lost to all sense of modesty,
put themselves forward
as reformers of the Church;
and, forming more boldly into line of attack,
assail all that

is most sacred in the work of Christ... ».

(Pope St. Pius X, “Pascendi”)

CHAPTER III

HIS “OPENING TO MODERNISM”

St. Pius X, in his encyclical “Pascendi” against “Modernism”,
wrote that the advocates of error were hiding, by now, even inside
the Church, “In the very bosom of the Church”, and that their
“counsels of destruction” stirred them “not outside the Church,
but inside of Her; so much so that the danger lies in wait almost in
Her very veins and viscera”.

With the “Motu Proprio” of November 18, 1907, Pius X
added “the excommunication to those who contradict these doc-
uments” (encyclical “Pascendi” and decree “Lamentabili”). He
was addressing the Bishops and Superior Generals of all Orders and
Institutes.

In 1946, the great P. Garrigeu Lagrange, O. P., in his article “La
Nouvelle Theologie Ou Va-t-elle?”, denounced the work of doctri-
nal corruption amidst the clergy, seminarians and Catholic intellec-
tuals.

He speaks of “typed sheets... distributed... in which were
found the most singular assertions and negations about “original
sin”, the “Real Presence”, and about all the other truths of Faith
(negation of the eternity of hell, Polygenism...); “a general con-
vergence of religions toward a universal Christ whom, all in all,
satisfies everyone; the only conceivable religion as a Religion of

the future”. It is the essence of today’s ecumenism; to make every
religion converge into Christ, separated, however, from His Mysti-
cal Body, the Catholic Church (in the “Lumen Gentium”, the light
of the Gentiles, of the Pagans, is Christ, and not His Church). De
Lubac, author of the “Surnaturel”, the most forbidden of the “for-
bidden books”, and also author of the “Corpus Mysticum”, with
its dogmatic relativism, explained that repeatedly.

The Vatican II, therefore, under such influxes, “has avoided,
in its main documents, the use of the term “supernatural” 1 .

Romano Amerio, too, in his “Jota Unum” (Chapter XXXV),
writes:

«The Council does not speak of supernatural
light, but of “fullness of light”. The naturalism
characterizing the two documents “Ad Gentes”
and “Nostra Aetate” is patent also in its termi-
nology, as the word “supernatural” does not oc-
cur in it».

Father Henrici, in the magazine “30 Giomi” (December, 1991)
underscores that the “Nouvelle Theologie” (condemned by Pius XII
in “Humani Generis”, in accord with St. Pius X) “has become the
official theology of Vatican II”.

This is also confirmed by the fact that the “key posts” in the
Church have already been assigned to the modem exponents of the
“Nouvelle Theologie”, whose official newspaper is the Magazine
“Communio”, subsidized by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sa-
cred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

Someone has pointed out that several theologians, named
bishops in recent years, come from the files of “Communio”;
such as the Germans Lehman and Kasper; the Swisse Von Schon-
bern and Corecce; the French Leonard; the Italian Scola; the
Brazilian Romer...

1 Jesuit Father Peter Henrici, in “Communio”, November-December 1990: “The
Maturation of the Council - Pre-Council Theological Experiences”, p. 44.

It must also be noted that the “founders” of this Magazine
“Communio”, Balthasar, De Lubac, and Ratzinger, have become
cardinals. Today, to this host of names, can be added the Domini-
can George Cottier, theologian (regretfully) of the “Pontifical
House”; Jean Duchesne, the press-agent of Cardinal Lustiger, and
the Hegelian Andre Leonard (today bishop of Namur and respon-
sible for the Seminary of Saint Paul, where Lustiger sends his sem-
inarians).

I also wish to point to the work: “Vatican II - Situation and
Prospects 25 Years After: 1962-1987”, in which its author, Rene
Lateurelle, S.J., illustrates the triumph of the “new theology” and
the favor it received with Paul VI.

P. Martina, S J., on pg. 46, writes:

«If one cannot certainly talk of excommunica-
tions and subsequent canonizations, some great
theologians were, however, in those years, made
the object of several restrictive measures, only
to take on, afterwards, a prominent role among
the main Conciliar experts; and they had a
thorough influence upon the genesis of the de-
crees of the Vatican II. Some books, in 1950,
were banished from the libraries, but, after the
Council, their authors became cardinals (de
Lubac, Danieleu...). Some pastoral initiatives
(such as that of the “working priests”) were
condemned and cut short, but were resumed
during and after the Councils

And so, the “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) was prac-
tically retracted by another Pope, Paul VI, who brought back in-
to the limelight his own theologians, whom his predecessor had con-
demned.

And so, with the advent of Paul VI on the Pontifical See,
there came into being that “reformist religion” which, by de-
grees, supplanted the traditional religion. From the loftiness of his
Papal See, Paul VI could impose those liberal and pro-Modemist
leanings he had breathed ever since his youth, setting off immedi-
ately that insane and ruinous process of “experimentation” in the

Church, which is but “novelties” supported by the Modernists.

I make brief mention of Paul Vi’s “antithetical parallelism” to
the Pontificate of St. Pius X, who had erected “barriers” against
Modernism, which Paul VI, however, knocked down with obstinate
decision, one after the other.

Here they are:

- Pius X, with the Motu Proprio “Sacrorum Antistitum”
(September 1910) had imposed the “anti-Modernist oath”; but
Paul VI abolished it.

- Pius X, against the ecclesiastics that contested “Decreto
Lamentabili” and the encyclical “Pascendi”, with the Motu Pro-
prio of November 18, 1907 inflicted the excommunication “Latae
Sententiae”, reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but Paul VI destroyed
it, ruling that he would not hear of excommunications anymore
(And why, then, the excommunication of Monsignor Lefebvre?).

- In order to confront the “synthesis of all heresies”, Mod-
ernism, Pius X had reorganized the Holy Office through the Con-
stitution “Sapienti Consilio” of June 29, 1908; but Paul VI, with
grave incipient counsel, destroyed it, abolished it, stating that of
“heresies” and widespread disorders, “thank God there are no
more within the Church” (“Ecclesiam Suam”) and that “the de-
fense of Faith, now (?!) is better served by the promotion of
Doctrine than by condemnation” (1965). (Perhaps the promoters
of “heresies” are not lacking in “doctrine”, other than in “good
Faith”? Perhaps the Church is no longer called to the gravest duty
of employing Her coercive power, which Jesus has bestowed upon
Her, against the obstinacy of the heretics?) 2 .

- Pius X, in order to protect the “catechesis” from the manip-
ulation of the Modernists, had wanted a basic catechism, one for the
entire Church; but Paul VI ostracized St. Pius X’s catechism, and
wanted “pluralism” in the catechesis, too; and he proved scan-
dalously tolerant with the heretical “Dutch Catechism”, making it

2 Today, the Holy Office is called “Holy Congregation For the Doctrine of

Faith”, which no longer condemns, and only issues, occasionally, some “Notes”
(which few read and no one cares about), to indicate some “error” amongst the
many springing up and circulating freely in the “mare magnum” of the heresies.

the archetype of all catechisms, more or less bizarre, which then
mushroomed throughout the dioceses of the Church.

And while Pius X had foiled the insidious tactic of the Mod-
ernists - whom presented their errors, “scattered and linked” - de-
nouncing, with his “Pascendi”, those dangerous “novelties” as “an
authentic, well-organized system of errors”, Paul VI, instead,
brutally revealed his Modernist side, when there came the LXX an-
niversary of that great Encyclical of St. Pius X, through the Mass
Media (Vatican Radio of September 4, 1977 and the Osservatore
Romano of September 8, 1977), which defined “Pascendi” a “rev-
elation” of Modernism, “not altogether historically respectful”.
But Paul VI didn’t stop here! He let denigrate the anti-Modernist
battle of St. Pius X, stating that “there lacked the knowledge or
the will or the respectful courage of reading distinctions and dif-
ferences in their own reality”. Hence St. Pius X would have been
an idiot and a pusillanimous charlatan!

That was thus the “commemoration” of that great Pope and
Saint, which revealed, however, Montini’s soul, all his bitterness
and his ever well-known typical Modernist trademark. And for that,
Paul VI repudiated those wise and inspired documents of Pius X’s
as they were “a rash pruning of sprouts then attempting to
grow”, when, instead, they had revealed the nature of abundant
“weeds”, rather than that of “sprouts”, which suffocated almost all
the good wheat the Church had harvested in the preceding centuries.

- Furthermore: Pius X, in order to hinder the advance of Mod-
ernist rationalism in the Biblical exegesis, had given stability to the
“Pontifical Biblical Commission”, wanted by Leo XIII, and, with
the “Motu Proprio” of November 18, 1907, had decreed that

«A11 are bound in conscience to submit to the de-
cisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission re-
lating to doctrine, which have been given in the
past and which shall be given in the future, in
the same way as to the Doctrinal Decrees of the
“Holy Congregation”, approved by the Pontiff».

Today, however, this obligation of conscience is no more, as
Paul VI had reduced this “Pontifical Biblical Commission” into a
section of the powerless - not to say useless - “Holy Congregation

for the Doctrine of Faith”. The evidence is in the fact that the Con-
gregation has never since issued any “Decrees”.

Moreover, on May 7, 1909, Pius X established the “Pontifical
Biblical Institute” in Rome, in order to shield the scholars of Sci-
ence of the Scriptures in the Biblical field from Modernism, . But
today, unfortunately - and precisely because of Paul VI - this In-
stitute is a nest and a breeding ground for Modernists amongst the
most corrupt in the Church. It is appropriate to recall that, in 1964,
Paul VI called the Jesuits Zerwik and Lyonnet, whom the Holy
Office had condemned and expelled to the “Biblical” [Institute].

- Pius X, in order to ensure a “formation of the Clergy” that
would be doctrinally orthodox, wanted the “Regional Seminaries”,
and issued scholarly “Norms for the educational and disciplinary
system of Italy’s Seminaries”. But Paul VI, in order to destroy the
Seminaries, entrusted the “Congregation for Catholic Education”
(and thus also for the Seminaries) to the liberal Cardinal Gar-
rone, whom, at the Council, had launched a fierce attack precisely
against the Regional Seminaries, and later, as the “Prefect” of that
Congregation, shut it down!

And in order to consolidate the ecclesiastical community, Pius X
had proceeded with the unification of the ecclesiastical laws through
the “Canon Law Code” (later promulgated by Benedict XV); but
Paul VI, shortly after, (thus without any necessity) called for a
“New Code”, which opened the doors to Modernist principles.
And while Pius X had staunchly condemned inter-confessionalism
[ecumenism] as it is harmful to the Faith of the Catholics and gener-
ates indifferentism, Paul VI, instead, wanted that scatterbrained
Modernist “ecumenism” that Pius X had already called a:

«Charity without Faith, quite soft on misbeliev-
ers, which gives way to all , unfortunately, the
way to eternal ruin».

But Montini, Archbishop at Milan, in 1958, had said, already:

«The boundaries of orthodoxy do not coincide
with those of pastoral charity » (?!).

Was the “pastoral”, then, to him, beyond Faith?

Be that as it may, it is a fact that Paul VI has always refused to
condemn even those theologians who had gone as far as denying the
divinity of Christ. And it is a fact that he let some bishops attack the
doctrinal encyclicals without reproaching or removing them!..

- And it is a fact that he himself used a “style” of non-con-
demnation even in important and solemn documents, in which he
used restrictive formulas, however, so as to invalidate any norma-
tive character. So did he with his “Creed”; so did he with the “Hu-
manae Vitae”, away with obligations and punishments.

- For what reason did he demolish, as it were, some encycli-
cals of his predecessors that had openly condemned Communism,
Modernism, and Freemasonry?

- What is the reason for his scandalous passivity before the
“Dutch schism”, allowing “errors” to spread throughout the
Catholic world ? 3

- Why his “inaction”, before the diffusion of so many hereti-
cal “catechisms”, before an “ideological pluralism” in forms,
ideas, and rites, under the convenient label of “pastoral”, or of cul-
tural broadening, in order that every truth, every dogma, every cer-
tainty might be repudiated; even though in his exhortations, occa-
sionally, he affected to be calling to order? Paul VI, in any case, not
only always refused to condemn, but also stood in the way of any
condemnation, placing even in high offices true and genuine advo-
cates of heresies, such as, for example, Kting, whom he personally
defended 4 .

- That is why he never wanted to condemn the heretic, Teil-
hard de Chardin, whom, on the contrary, he occasionally cited and
subtly praised.

- And that is why he let the Holy See be challenged upon the
most important points of the Faith, without reactions on his part.

- And that is why he threw away all of Tradition, with
shrewdness, “destructions” and “reconstructions” made “in
stages”, introduced, at first, “ad esperimentum”, out of special or
personal interest, to be soon reconfirmed or promulgated.

3 “Live Church”, 1972, issues 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13.

4 “Corriere della Sera”, August 10, 1978, p. 4.

- And that is why he diminished “ministerial Catholic priest-
hood”, bringing it closer to the ministry of the “Protestant Pas-
tors”.

- And that is why he let the seminarians travel to Taize,
where Protestant and Calvinist cults are also celebrated; and he con-
tinued to welcome their Leaders, such as Schutz and Thurian and
even others, as if they had been authentic “ministers”.

- And that is why he allowed many theologians to continue to
demolish “ministerial priesthood”, less and less distinguished
from the “priesthood” of the laity 5 .

- And that is why he wanted that “Reform of the Seminaries”,
which cries out for vengeance before Christ the Priest.

- And that is why he allowed (nay, he wanted!) that the habit
be replaced with civilian clothing, with all the consequences that
this has brought about (and it is still bringing about).

- And that is why he eliminated the Tonsure, the Ostiariate,
the Exorcistate, and the Subdiaconate (September 15, 1972), that
is to say, all of the Minor Orders.

- And that is why he wanted, categorically wanted, his Change
of the “Traditional Mass”.

- And that is why he let the psychosis of the “woman-priest”
spread, although he later had to say that it could not have been (as
of yet), letting cardinals and bishops, however, continue to publi-
cize, that idea undisturbed.

- And that is why he admitted the possibility of accepting

“married priests”.

- And that is why he allowed co-celebrations of “Anglican
Pastors” at the Vatican.

- And that is why he allowed some Protestants to receive the
Eucharist.

- And that is why he allowed Holy Communion to be distrib-
uted into the hands and that the “Holy Species” could be placed

5 Cardinal Willebrands’s rash statement, in an interview upon his joining the Con-
clave, and broadcast by RAI [Italy’s public TV Network] at 7.00 a.m. on August
14, 1978, precisely on this subject: the Church of tomorrow should accept mar-
ried priests, etc.

100

in breadbaskets and even distributed by girls in miniskirts.

- And that is why he let pass and authorized “open Commu-
nions”, that is, that Protestants could participate in the Communion
during Catholic Mass, and that Catholics could participate in the

Protestant “Supper”.

- And that is why he abolished “Latin” in the Liturgy, forc-
ing the use of national languages and even dialects (eliminating, in
this way, catholicity), and similarly ruined sacred music (we have
tom-toms, at St. Peter, as well as rock music), and emptied our
churches of all that is sacred, and had the “altars” turned facing the
people (counter to the “Humani Generis”), in the fashion of the ta-
bles for the Protestant “Suppers”.

And thus he turned the Church into a sort of “Political Party”,
and turned “religion” into a sort of lively Center (melting pot) of
integral humanism, “as he wanted to build a world wherein
every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can
live a fully human life” 6 .

In simple terms, Paul Vi’s “religion” became, as it were, the

“servant” of the world, since “religion must be renovated”...
(August 12, 1960), since all religions are equal, serving only for the
purpose of fraternizing in the temporal sphere.

Hence Paul VI allowed the demolition of dogmas, as these
were a hindrance to brotherhood. He allowed the Sacraments to be
obscured and the Commandments to be weakened, as these were
too inflexible. In brief: He allowed the whole institution of the
Church to crumble to the ground.

Utopia or apostasy?

Idolater of science, or pseudo-science, He made a cult of it.

- That is why he spoke, terrorized, by the continuous growth
of world population, seconding, in this manner, the Masonic-Cap-
italist campaign behind “Birth Control”.

- That is why he received Doctor Barnhard (the first physi-
cian to perform a heart “transplant”) even before studying the
moral aspects of this practice.

6 “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47.

101

- That is why he sang the praises to the man on the moon.

- With his “revisions”, with his “adaptation” to the world, he
emptied seminaries, religious novitiates, gave the Church leftist
“trade unionist priests”, reduced the message of the Cross to a
vile humanism. It was he, in fact, who wanted the revision and
modernization of all the Constitutions of Religious Orders and
Institutes, bringing about destruction, disorder, anarchy, and chaos.

- He destroyed every Catholic organization: A.C., FUCI, orato-
ries, and traditional parish associations.

- He abandoned the “Tiara”, symbol of Pontifical power
(donating it to Milan, but then losing it in the United States).

- He abolished the “Pastoral”.

- He wore, on his chest, the “Ephod” of Hebrew High Priest.

- He handed the Insignia of St. James to the Orthodox.

- He democratized all the institutions of the Church.

- He spread and wanted the concept of “democracy” in all of
the institutions of the Church, although it [concept of democracy]
had been condemned by the past Magisterium (such as Vatican I
(DS 3115); such as St. Pius X in “Sillon”), thus weakening the
monarchical power, of divine right, in the Church.

- He introduced 15 women into the Council, and later on 70
more into the Vatican offices, 7 of which in the Holy See’s most
delicate Offices, in direct contact with the Pope.

- He always refused to receive groups of seculars and priests
that were faithful to Tradition (thus creating, himself, new forms of
schism), whereas he always sent out his “Blessings” to all the oth-
ers, non-traditionalists.

- He always received Freemasons, Communists, Modernists,
protesters and leftists of any kind.

- He received, without reactions, the movie star “Cardinale”
[1967: Paul VI received actress Claudia Cardinale and Antonella
Lualdi, first miniskirts ever to enter the Vatican], in miniskirt; and
girls in shorts and “hot pants”; all in a special audience, declar-
ing himself altogether “Mindful of certain values that you are
pursuing: spontaneity, sincerity, liberation from certain formal
and conventional ties, the necessity of being oneself and to live
and to interpret the issues of one’s own times” 7 .

- He received the scandalous hippies and beatnik singers, and
pop bands, in blue jeans, long and disheveled hair, ragged T-shirts

102

and coats.

- He received Marcellino de Santos, head of the assassins who
murdered even a Missionary Father and the inhabitants of Mueda
(Mozambique); and he gave his blessing to the murderer Cabrol,
of Guinea, and to Agostinho Neto, Leader of Terrorism in Angola,
etc.

***

All in all, he made a relentless show of his will to break with
the Church of the past. Even his inconsiderate relegation of oc-
togenarian Cardinals, forbidding them from entering the Conclave
for the election of the Pope, concealed his “mens” [mind] of elim-
inating from the Conclave all those members who would not be fa-
vorable to his own line of “revision” of his “new Church”.

He wanted the resignation of the Bishops, making it manda-
tory at 75 years.

- He created the “Episcopal Conferences”, without defined
power limits.

- He eliminated major figures in the Church, placing in many
posts of command progressive and liberal-Freemasonic figures.

- He abolished many holy days of obligation.

-He wrote off abstinence from meat on Fridays.

- He opened the way, with his silence, to the obsession of sex-
ual relations in Catholic schools.

- He let the doors open to all kinds of protests.

- He issued a “Decree” for “mixed marriages”, without man-
dating Catholic Baptism of their offspring!

- He attempted to abolish traditional “cloistered life”, even
though he masked his position, on the outside, with favorable ex-
pressions.

- He dispatched Cardinal Willebrandt, as his “Legate”, to the
Lutheran Assembly of Evian (September, 1970) to sing Luther’s
praises.

- He performed that incredible gesture of throwing himself

7 “II Tempo”, April 14, 1971.

103

down on his knees and kissing the feet of Metropolite Melitone, en-
voy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Demetrius.

- He destroyed the so-called “triumphalism” in the Church, in
the name of the slogan: “The Church of the Poor”, which, in real-
ity, is but a caving in to the Secular-Masonic-Marxist mind in our
times.

- Under his Pontificate, the Vatican accredited the first
“woman-ambassador”, Miss Bemardette P. A. Olowo (not even 28
years old).

- He blessed the “Pentecostals”, dancing and screaming at St.
Peter.

- He - still Archbishop of Milan - opened up the “Secret
Archives of the Curia” to search for documents regarding the
“Monaca di Monza” [Nun of Monza, made famous by Alessandro
Manzoni’s novel, “The Betrothed”], which was a basis for a novel
and a film (as if he had been unable to determine the moral harm
this would cause).

- His was the clamorous “absolution” to the Graham Greene’s
book, “The Power and the Glory”, a longstanding entry in the Index.

- He multiplied the “disobedient” in every sector, granting
them his tolerance, such as the “ACLI”, the “small groups”, the
“base communities”, the “Catholics for Socialism”, the “Fourth
of November” movement, the “working priests”, the adherents to
the “Red Christ” of the Italian Socialist party (PSI); that is, a total
landslide to the left.

We may conclude that he ditched all that sustained the Church
and Christian Europe: authority, hierarchy, discipline, family,
teaching, Catholic university, regular and secular clergy, parish-
es. He declassed the Sacraments, and imposed bogus liturgical
reforms.

It is a “fact” that, in his speeches - in an almost edifying man-
ner - the “new” always prevails upon the traditional. But his
ability was to always slip in, after a witticism or an anti-progressive
reasoning, an additional piece encouraging the progressives.

It is similarly a “fact” that his hetero-praxis [Hetero-praxis is
any practice that a person or a group does or could do which implies
that one or more Catholic doctrines are not true i.e. Communion in
the hand] provoked a doctrinal change, though not expressed in a
doctrinal way.

104

In conclusion, we narrate this eloquent episode: the nephew of
professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, Doctor Sattler, Ambassador to
the Holy See, in July, 1968 told the Hildebrands that Paul VI had
said to them: «It is my hope, during my reign, to achieve the
“reconciliation” between Catholics and Protestants». The Am-
bassador was quite troubled. He kept on saying: «He said “recon-
ciliation”, not “conversion” !»

***

This was the real face of Paul VI. This was his Pontificate. Just
as he had always been considered a “progressive”, even before be-
coming a pope, he then became the victim of his own boldness.

One has only to recall his steadfast opposition, at the Council,
of the “Coetus Internationalis Patrum”, as he never stopped
supporting the liberal bishops.

And just consider his silent attitude before the internal de-
molition of the Church and his fiery perseverance in destroying
the Catholic Nations (Italy, Spain, etc.).

And it should not slip one’s mind his other “silent” behavior in-
dicative of his liberal, Modernist-progressive mind: When the
“divorce” legislation was approved in Italy, Paul VI was in Sidney
(Australia). He was promptly informed, and he said he was expect-
ing it; He was sorry for the harm it would cause the family, and for
the reason that it was in breach of a provision of the Concordat. As
for “sin”, however, ne verbum quidem [not a single word] !

I could go on and on with so many other “facts” and “words”
of Paul Vi’s, clearly indicative of what an authentic liberal-Mod-
emist he had been.

On June 30, 1968, in order to dispel suspicions as to his “Mod-
ernism”, Paul VI, at St. Peter Square, for the closing of the Year of
the Faith, made a solemn “Profession of Faith”, which appeared as
the “New Creed”, an antidote for the “New Catechism”.

And yet reading closely his writing, one could see that Paul VI
had, yes, taken up the old Creed of Nicea, but had also inserted in-
to it some points of a more recent Catholic doctrine.

105

There was a burst of enthusiasm for that “Creed” 8 , but - a
“but” is really a must - Paul VI had prefaced the text of his for-
mulation of the act of Faith, with two clarifications: The first, that
he intended to fulfill “the mandate Christ entrusted to Peter”,
and provide “a firm testimony of the divine truth entrusted to
the Church”; and this was perfectly all right. But, with a second
clarification, he put everything back into question, as he excluded,
expressly, that his Creed was “a dogmatic definition” in the
strict sense of the word.

In his own words:

«... We are about to make a profession of faith,
to utter a creed, which, without being a dog-
matic definition in the strict sense of the word
(!!), and despite some developments sought-af-
ter by the spiritual conditions of our time...».

Now, that is a very serious fact, a deliberate misconstruction,

for every object-proposition of the “Creed” constitutes “revealed
truths, of divine Faith and of Catholic faith”, attested in the
Scriptures, in the Apostolic Tradition (e g. the two sources of
Revelation) and defined by the Infallible Magisterium of the
Church. Hence truths of Catholic Faith.

What then? Was it his umpteenth clever action in order to hide
his real mind? Was it shielding himself from the critics, since he had
failed to condemn the “Dutch Catechism?” (Shortly after, in fact,
he had himself photographed together with the famed Dutch Do-
minican heretic Father Schillebeeckx, co-author of that ill-
famed catechism).

Be it as it may, a strange silence followed the “Creed” of
Paul VI. In lieu of a plebiscite of adhesions without reservations, on
the part of the official ruling Catholic world, there was no open and
uttered consent.

8 For example, on the “Osservatore Romano” of August 31, 1968 - article by
Jean Danieleu.

106

I conclude by saying that what I reported of his “remarks” and
“deeds”, is more than sufficient, I think it is enough to dishonor his
Pontificate by thinking of him as of a “new Honorius”.

Namely, when Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema of the VII
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople against pope Honorius, he
had only said this:

«With Honorius, who did not, as he became the
Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of
heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fos-
tered it by his negligence».

Now, this imputation can also definitely be brought against Paul
VI. Like Honorius, in fact, he too “fomented heresy through his
negligence” and, perhaps, even worse than pope Honorius, through
his approval. Yes, for Paul VI continued to see to that “self-de-
struction” of the Church, which he, himself, had denounced, in
spite of being its author, and which he, himself, had carried forward
with those “men of the Church” whom he, himself, had placed and
maintained in key positions.

Regrettably, today, we are still suffering those sorrowful years
of his pontificate, which might be defined as one of the worst peri-
ods of the long history of the Church. The consequences are there
for all to see: the Faith gone; the true Liturgy destroyed; the Eu-
charistic cult humiliated; sound theology in shambles; the
Sacraments no longer inspiring trust, for their significance has been
distorted; the Mass that has become a communal gathering; the
Catechism devoid of dogma; the children themselves that have lost
respect for sacred things; and thousands of them are no longer bap-
tized, because of the quaint ideas of many priests; and the prayers
for the dead that have been disposed of due to a trivial and ugly
liturgy.

At this juncture, to reform this Church, leprous with heresy and ir-
reverence, what is needed is a Divine Intervention, since a true Re-
formation would have to set out with restoring the Altar of the
“Sacrifice” (which is not the “table” of the Protestant “Supper”
imposed, by now, even in Catholic churches), since only from the
true Altar comes unity; and only there “Truth” is affirmed, and
from thence alone can spread true Charity.

107

AGAINST THE “MODERNISM”

«Many false prophets will arise and deceive many». (Mt 24, 11)

«If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you
don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself». (St. Au-
gustine)

«There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be
questioned, even publicly, by their subjects». (St. Thomas)

«Especially when the danger is imminent, the truth must be pub-
licly preached, nor should one do the contrary out of fear that
someone be scandalized!». (St. Thomas)

«Be strong! We must not yield where we must not yield ... We
must fight, not mincing words, but with courage, not in secret
but in public, not behind closed doors, but open». (St. Pius X)

«They have hatred towards everything that is traditional and sa-
cred». (St. Pius X)

«The partisans of error are to be sought not only among the
Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and de-
plored, in Her very bosom». (St. Pius X)

«Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is
to suppress it». ( Pope Felix III)

«Let it be far from any one’s mind to suppress for any reason
any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would
tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring
in those who differ». (Pope Leo XIII)

«If I have against me all the Bishops, I have with me all the
Saints and Doctors of the Church». (St. Thomas)

Above: So, is this what the new priests wear? (From:
“Seminar” - Treviso (Italy) 15.12.1979).

Right: The Rev. Dr. Moriary Frederick, a Jesuit profes-
sor at Woodstock College, celebrating Holy Mass on a
simple table and wearing only a stole.

Below: Fr. Thomas Coyle, pastor of the Catholic Uni-
versity of St. Paul Parish in Madison, Wis. concelebrat-
ed the Mass in a chapel of the University of Wisconsin,
with Sister Alla Bozarth-Campbell, one of the 1 1 irreg-
ularly ordained women as Episcopal priests in Philadel-
phia, in 1974.

Bottom right: A pastoral deviation again!

cimsfl mnam d i stefai vemm

DOMINICA 2B G£N. l?79
ORE 16-30

It CBUfPO RffUElCALE
nr | la p ilhBOCCIHA
m san pirmc nn cu
WUISJINO PUFSZItrjL

JAZZ c
CANTI

MODERN!

« CHIFSJ1

Cl iAFlAhhlC 0. 5 AX
| LE CHITARH1 ELETTIBC
1 Hi H npl>D LA CHITA
| 11 n A CLAaECrt La 7TK?

MIA LXWaAMQ ELETTt!

| O^IM T mini LE 1/DCJ

INGRESSO LEDERO

LA F ATR IE - ScrilainC du ZO nuQt 19S7

A Saints Adotpho-d^Howard

On danse a
cote de I a u tel

| Au moiiKnl do I 'Elevation, quatro £1 avert da
I'lminv ii» n *ni Mil o Lumberl Interpreter t una d-an-no pDdllq.ua,.

* v*V*

Sr Tin, i Er-rn.l, nm. iliMfiinl tjnvrml i'llUli! I I DM d'un n meiBO COnCuliIjrii'n a lUnlol Ejn
Fc^itfipco, ifw^nt to convenllsri nalFonnlo d-j la iCnllggn ThonkHjy Socloty.> Tgub lc>
coacclobranls c talent du JOiuILbi JMttffcrieaJni. proFeiioun da theglggie,

Above: “Performing the Truth in Love”. Published in “Carmel Life” in June ‘79.
And this picture gives us an essay... What fools!

Below: Priests performing a dance at the end of a Mass celebrated after a regional confer-
ence of “Charismatic Renewal” in Augusta, Ga.

Above: Sister... "Relaxing”

Bottom left: Sister in... “Blue Jeans”.

Bottom right: A picturesque image, in the USA, the Shepherd who leads people to Christ!

«Freemasonry: Here is the enemy ».

(Leo XIII, “Humanum Genus”)

114

CHAPTER IV

HIS “OPENING TO FREEMASONRY”

The Catholic Church has always condemned this “Masonic
sect”, denouncing its “secrets” in the process.

Jacques Mitterand, former Grand Master of the “Grand Ori-
ent” of France, made admission of it. In his work, “The Policy of
the Freemasons”, he wrote:

«The Catholic Church did not mistake the im-
portance of the event... With the Bull “In Emi-
nenti”, Pope Clement XII pronounced, in 1738,
the excommunication of the French Freema-
sons, denouncing the “secret” that surrounded
them and their operations)) 1 .

After 1738, all of the Pontiffs renewed those “admonitions” and
those “sanctions”. Here are their major encyclicals on that theme:

“PRO VIDAS” of Benedict XIV, on May 18, 1751;

1 Clement XII, “In Eminenti”, p. 45.

115

“QUO GRAVIORA”, Apostolic Constitution of Leo XII, on
March 13, 1820;

“ECCLESIAM” of Pius VII, against the “Carbonari” [“coal-
burners”; secret revolutionary society founded in early 19th century
Italy, and organized in the fashion of Freemasonry] on September
13, 1821;

“TRADITI” of Pius VIII, on May 24, 1829, confirming the pre-
vious “anathemas”;

“QUI PLURIBUS” of Pius IX, on November 9, 1846;

“QUIBUS QUANTISQUE” of Pius IX, on November 9, 1849;

“HUMANUM GENUS” of Leo XIII, on April 20, 1884;

“PASCENDI” of St. Pius X, on September 8, 1907.

***

Benedict XIV blessed Monsignor Jouin for his work: “Against
the Sects That are the Enemies of Religion”.

Pius XII, on July 24, 1958, denounced, as the roots of modern
apostasy, Scientific Atheism, Dialectic Materialism, Rationalism,
Secularism, and their common mother: FREEMASONRY 2 .

Pope John XXIII, in 1960, reminded the Roman Synod:

«As for the Masonic sect, the faithful must keep
in mind that the penalty stipulated by the
Canon Law Code (canon 2335) is still in effect* 3 .

The approach of the Church, then, up until the Vatican II, was al-
ways clear and coherent. The condemnation of Freemasonry was be-
cause of its tendency to destroy the religious order and the Christ-
ian social order, even if it presents itself under the mask of toler-
ance and respect of the others. Its real aim, however, is that of re-
building society on a new basis, excluding Our Lord Jesus Christ, in
order to achieve a universal religion, according to the principle of
democracy.

2 Ploncard D’Assac: “The Secret of the French Freemasons”, p. 226-227.

3 Idem.

116

In fact, ever since that sect was able to operate, there were, in
France, five revolutions (1789-1830-1848-1870-1945), four for-
eign invasions (1815-1870-1914-1940), two spoliations of the
Church; the expulsion of the Religious Orders; the suppression
of Catholic schools; the secularization of the institutions (1789
and 1901)...

And yet, today, one still hears - irresponsibly! - that Freema-
sonry has changed, hence no longer deserving of condemnation. But
that is a bogus statement. Even prior to Vatican II, the Roman doc-
uments were more than explicit. For example:

«Freemasonry of the Scottish rite falls under
the condemnation issued by the Church against
Freemasonry in general, and there is no reason
to grant any discrimination in favor of that cat-
egory of Freemasons» 4 .

«Since nothing has come about that would so-
licit a change, in this matter, in the decisions of
the Holy See, the provisions of the Canon Law
retain their full validity, for any type of
Freemasonry what-so-ever» 5 ‘

On January 5, 1954, the Holy Office condemned a work by the
Grand Master of Austrian Freemasonry. On February 20, 1959, the
Plenary Assembly of the Argentinian Cardinals, Archbishops,
and Bishops, published a “Statement” recalling the formal con-
demnation from Pope Clement XII through to St. Pius X, and un-
derscored that Freemasonry and Marxism pursue one and the same
aim. Unfortunately, with Vatican II, the Church modified Her
course. The Freemasons, themselves, were prompt to observe it:

«The Council of Rome (Vatican II), in its sec-
ond session, let transpire a great diplomatic
movement of the Church in the direction of

4 “Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office”, 1946.

5 Same petition, April 20, 1949.

117

Freemasonry. The approach of the Church does
not surprise the French Freemasonry’s leaders,
who had long been expecting it and believed to
have traced, rightly or wrongly, in the works of
M. Alec Melior and in the conferences of Father
Riquet (a Jesuit), the preliminary efforts toward
a preparation of the mentality* 6 .

This “new direction” of the Church was confirmed by Freema-
son Yves Marsaudon 7 in a book of his published at the conclusion
of the Council:

«When Pius XII decided to direct personally the
very important Ministry of Foreign Affaires,
Monsignor Montini (sent to Milan) did not re-
ceive the purple. It thus became, not canonical-
ly impossible, but traditionally difficult that up-
on the death of Pius XII, he could accede to the
Supreme Pontificate. But then came a man
whom, like his Precursor, called himself John,
and then it all began to change... 8 . If some small
islands still exist, not too distant, in the mind,
from the times of the Inquisition, they would be
forcibly drowned in the high tide of Ecumenism
and Liberalism, one of the tangible conse-
quences of which shall be the lowering of the

6 J. A. Faucher - A. Ricker: “History of Freemasonry in France”, p. 469.

7 Baron Marsaudon was a “thirty-third” honorary “commendatore “ of the
Supreme Council of France (Grand Lodge) and Distinguished Minister of the
Supreme Military Order of Malta. He had been well acquainted with Monsignor
Roncalli when this was Nuncio at Paris. It is certain, in any case, that Monsignor
Roncalli had no diffidence toward Freemasonry, as he demonstrated, for example,
when, having become Pope, he received a telegram of congratulations from a
Lodge on his 80th birthday, and as his stance demonstrated, in this regard, during
the Roman Synod of 1960.

8 Marsaudon: “Ecumenism Viewed By a Freemason of Tradition”, p. 42.

118

spiritual barriers still dividing the world. It is
with all our heart, we wish the success of John
XXIII ’s “revolution”* 9 .

And so, the “new” approach of the Church was the change of
course by Vatican II, guided formerly by John XXIII, and subse-
quently by Paul VI, which adopted ecumenical and liberal posi-
tions toward Freemasonry, even though for 250 years they had
been utterly different.

At this juncture, someone might ask himself: How is it that with
Vatican II, there was such an “opening” to Freemasonry, when,
prior to it, Freemasonry had always been judged the “number one
enemy” of the Catholic Church?

But anyone that followed the progress of Vatican II should
know that “liberal” and “Modernist” bishops, not a few of whom
belonged, if not “de facto”, ideologically, however, to Freemason-
ry, had taken it over.

The “fact” was patent, for example, in Cardinal Achille Lie-
nart, Bishop of Lille, who ruined Vatican II since its very first ses-
sion, causing all of the Pontifical Commissions that had already pre-
pared all the work and study plans, to be rejected. He acted under
command of the “Masonic occultic power”.

And yet, in France, it was no secret that his political ideas were
redder than his habit, and that he also belonged to Freemasonry; that
his “initiation” had taken place in 1912; that he “received the
light” at Cambrai; that he frequented three Lodges at Lille and one
at Valenciennes, and then two more at Paris, “reserved for Parlia-
mentarians”; and that, in 1924, he was elevated to the 30 th degree
and made “Kaddosh Knight” 10 . As one can see, a “curriculum vi-
tae” of a Freemason Bishop-Cardinal that is quite eloquent as to
the weight he had in the Council.

9 As above, p. 26.

10 The Freemason Monsieur B., (healed at Lourdes on July 19, 1932, whose heal-
ing was recognized by the “Bureau des Constatations” on July 18, 1933), narrat-
ed that, at the time he frequented the Lodges, he used to meet there with Cardi-
nal Lienart.

119

Therefore, it would not be out of place if we also recall his cry,
on his deathbed: “Humainement, l’Eglise est Perdue!” 11 .

But then, what could we say of Paul VI as to that Jewish-Ma-
sonic occupation that, throughout his Pontificate and during Vatican
II, was, as it were, flanked by that dark shadow that dominated it?

From many places and at different times, in an objective manner,
even fierce, at times, it was insinuated that Paul VI - according to
experts of heraldry and nobility - descended from converted Jews 12 ,
and had been “initiated” by the B’nai B’rith Lodge, and that he al-
ways entertained good relations with Freemasons and Jewish cir-
cles 13 .

Be that as it may, in order to shed a cloudless light upon this as-
pect of Paul Vi’s personality, it would be appropriate to closely ex-
amine some of the “facts”.

Specifically:

1) Paul Vi’s “obituary”, or funeral oration by the former
Grand Master of “Palazzo Giustiniani” [Rome’s headquarters of the
Grand Orient of Italy], Giordano Gamberini, made in “La Rivista
Massonica” magazine is disconcerting. It reads:

«To us, it is the death of him who made the con-
demnation of Clement XII and of his successors
fall. That is, it is the first time - in the history
of modern Freemasonry - that the Head of the
greatest Western religion dies not in a state of
hostility with the Freemasons»!

And he concludes:

11 “Tradition - Information”, n. 7, p. 21.

12 We cite, amongst the many: Paul Scortesco, “L’Eglise Condannee”, suppl. a
“Lumiere” n. 148, 1976, p. 23 and subsequent; Leon De Poncins, “Christianisme
et Franc- Maconnerie”, “La Pensee Fran£aise” Editions, Chire, p. 272, note 5.

13 The “documentation” on the thought and “Masonic work” of Paul VI in
“Forts dans la Foi”, Issues 46 and 47, year 1976, in the articles of the fathers Si-
mon and Guerard des Lauriers.

120

«... For the first time in history, the Freema-
sons can pay respect to the tomb of a Pope,
without ambiguities or contradiction^ 4 .

In fact, having considered the events that took place under Paul
Vi’s Pontificate (such as to cause him to say that a “self-destruction”
of the Church was afoot), one can perceive how it had been possible
that Freemasonry could pay such a bombastic tribute to Paul VI.

2) In a lengthy letter of the renowned Pauline Don Rosario F.
Esposito, in “La Rivista Massonica” Magazine, to the former
Grand Master Gamberini, it is said:

«... Dear Gamberini, I appreciated, even in its
Cartesian aloofness, your editorial on the death
of the Pope» 15 .

And he continued revealing some “facts”, spanning from 1950
to 1959, and which demonstrated Paul VI as a protagonist.
Namely: between 1948 and 1950, the then Monsignor Montini said
to Father Felix A. Morlion, OP, founder of “Pro Deo”:

«Not a generation will pass and, between the
two societies (Church and Freemasonry), the
peace shall be sealed» 16 .

(But is the Church a... “society”?). In any case, that “peace”
was ratified by the Holy Office in July of 1974, with a “letter”:
“The letter of the Holy Office to Cardinal Krol bears the date of

14 “La Rivista Massonica” ed., n. 5, July 1978, p. 290.

15 “La Rivista Massonica” ed., n. 6, August 1978, p. 371-373.

16 J. A. Ferrer, G. Caprile: “Freemasonry and Catholic Church”, p. 91. (On
“Pastoral Life” of December 1974, Father Esposito had already hinted to the fact,
without revealing, at the time, the name of the interlocutor of Father Morilion -
as later did Monsignor Montini).

121

July 19, 1974, thus the terms of “a generation” have been per-
fectly met 17 .

That “Letter” was from Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Con-
gregation for the Doctrine of Faith, with which, other than an-
nouncing a “new Canon Law Code”, he invited the Bishops, in
dealing with the Freemasons, to follow the example of the North-
European Bishops, which consisted in the “permit” granted by the
Scandinavian and Finnish Bishops (and tolerated by the Vatican) to
the Protestant Freemasons converted to Catholicism, to retain their
status of Freemasons.

Here is that text of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Bishops,
published on the Official Bulletin of the Norwegian Episcopate,
“Sankt Olaw” of June of 1967:

«The Scandinavian Episcopal Conference has
decided, after lengthy and careful reflection,
that the Bishops may allow, individually, the
members of the Masonic Order of our North-
ern Nations wishing to embrace Catholicism, to
be welcomed in the Church without renouncing
their active membership in Freemasonry^ 8 .

As one can see, this concession was in open contrast with

Canon 2335 of the “Codex Juris Canonici” of St. Pius X, which
established:

«Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve eius-
dem generis associationibus quae contra Eccle-
siam vel legitimas civiles potestates machinan-
tur, contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem
Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam».

[transation: Persons who have themselves enrolled
in the Masonic sect, or in other associations of the

17 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 6, August 1978, p. 372.

18 Georges Virebeau, “Prelats et Franc-Masons”, Henry Coston Publisher, 1978,
p. 92.

122

same ki nd which plot against the Church or the le-
gitimate civil powers, incur ipso facto excommu-
nication reserved simply to the Apostolic See.]

In that “Letter”, besides, Father Esposito points out - on paper-

other “facts” on Paul Vi’s favoring of Freemasonry. Like the fol-
lowing:

Paul VI “was not afraid to acknowledge that the Church had
succumbed to excessive mistrust” toward the “Rotary Club”, an
institution linked to Freemasonry 19 .

In addition to what Father Esposito wrote, we could add more
significant “facts” and “remarks” as to the “mens” [mind] and
conduct of Paul VI with regard to Freemasonry.

- In a Masonic magazine it is said that the Grand Master Gam-
berini, on the very day of the announcement of Montini’s Papal in-
vestiture, said: “Here is our man!”

- Carlo Falconi, writes in a book: «... et j’ajouterai que l’in-
formation que m’a comuniquee comme certaine un “trente
troisieme degre”, par ailleurs digne de foi, selon laquelle Monti-
ni serait inscrit dans une Loge maconnique, m’a toujours laisse
tres perplexe ». 20 [I would add that the information I received from
a certain 33 degree - also credible - that Montini was always en-
rolled in a Masonic Lodge- always leaves me very perplexed].

- In a private letter, written by a Freemason, friend of the
renowned French writer, Count Leon de Poncins, an authority in
Masonic issues, this passage appears: «...With Pius X and Pius
XII, we Freemasons could do very little, but, avec Paul VI, nous
avons vencu!» No need for translation!

- Now, that Vatican II had also been controlled by liberal-
Freemasons has been proven by the “fact” of the Freemason Car-
dinal Lienart, as we already noted.

A head of Freemasonry, Minister of State of the Supreme Coun-
cil of the Scottish Rite in France, Mr. Marsaudon, in his book: “Ec-

19 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 6, August 1978, p. 372. Paolo Vi’s statement at an
audience with the Rotaryans.

20 From the French edition of “Vu et Entendu au Concite”, Ed. du Rocher, 1962.

123

umenism From the Perspective of a Freemason of Tradition”,
speaking of all Pope Montini had done, wrote: «One could really
speak of a Revolution that from our Masonic Lodges has spread
out magnificently, reaching the top of St. Peter’s Basilica».

Was it not, perhaps, his “Liturgical Reform”, that was foreseen
by the Freemason Roca in 1883? «The divine cult - had written
Roca - in an Ecumenical Council shall undergo a transforma-
tion that will put it in harmony with the state of modern civi-
lization^ 1 .

And why did Paul VI lift the “censures” 22 on Freemasonry,
thus allowing the secular to join it (if at the discretion of one’s own
Bishop)? And what right did he have to do that, after the more
than 200 “documents” of the Magisterium condemning it?

And so it was that the Grand Master Lino Salvini, in an inter-
view on the eve of the assembly of the Grand Orient (March 18,
1978), could say, “Our relations with the Vatican are excellent”.

- And why was a portrait of Pius IX allowed... depicted as a
Freemason, with an accompaniment of moral insults (his alleged il-
legitimate sons, etc.), left in display at Palazzo Braschi, in Rome,
while no one, neither the Secretary of State, nor the Vicariate of
Rome, nor the Osservatore Romano, ever reacted or protested?
Even Cardinal Poletti, to whom I myself wrote a vibrant letter, did
not condescend to send me a reply. [Ed. note: Pius IX was accused
of being a Mason as the Masons in Roman made a portrait in which
the pope was wearing Masonic signs. But this has been proved to
be a Masonic trick. So, while leaving exposed... a portrait of Pius
IX... with an outline of moral insults (his presumed sons etc...)
They (the Vatican) wanted to slander the Pope to help their efforts
to stop his beatification process.]

- Thus Freemasonry, in Paul Vi’s Church, was by now ex-
tremely visible, both in the “black lists” and in the actuation of
“programs” in a strict Masonic style.

- And how many “Masonic laws” have entered the Church un-

21 “Mystere d’Iniquite”, p. 43 - Editions Saint-Michel, 53 Saint-Cenere - CCP
Rennes 2074-79.

22 C.D.C., art. 2335.

124

der his Pontificate: divorce, abortion, separation between Church
and State, degradation of Seminaries and Religious Congrega-
tions, parity of women, and so forth and so on.

And while he always refused to receive the Catholics of Tradi-
tion, he continually welcomed, instead, the members of the Mason-
ic Lodges, like, for example, those of the Jewish Masonic Lodge of
the “B’nai-Brith”; like those of “L’ Alliance Israelite Universelle”,
which aims at achieving the union of all religions into one.

Now, the identity of views of this “Masonic scheme” can be ob-
served in the Masonic schemes of the UN, of UNESCO, as well as
in his encyclical “Populorum Progressio”. Paul VI, in fact, speaks
of a “world bank” backed by a “world Government”, which
would be ruling thanks to a “synthetic and universal religion”.

And on August 9, 1965, in regard to Judaism, Islamism, and
Christianity, Paul VI had to say:

«They are three expressions (?!!) professing an
identical monotheism, through the three most
authentic avenues . . .».

And again:

«Would it not be possible that the name of the
very same God, instead of irreducible opposi-
tions... generate a possible agreement... with-
out the prejudice of theological discussions»?

Sure it would be possible! So long as Christ “Son of God” is
kicked out of the picture (for he does not exist in other religions),

along with the Holy Trinity.

- And what to say, then, of his “religion of man”, which he re-
lentlessly advocated, as if that it is not a distinctive Masonic concept?

And let us recall, once again, his visit to the UN (one of
Freemasonry’s highest places), where, before reciting before the As-
sembly his humanist address (which any other Freemason might as
well have uttered), Paul VI walked into the “Meditation Room”,
the Masonic sanctuary, at the center of which stands “an altar for
a faceless God”. Now, Paul VI had to know that “chamber of med-
itation” was ... a Masonic Lodge.

125

But there are countless “facts” witnessing of his explicit collab-
oration with Freemasonry.

- During his journey to the Holy Land (in 1954), on the Mount
of Olives, at Jerusalem, he embraced the Orthodox Patriarch
Athenagoras I, Freemason of the XXXIII degree. Then, on the
eve of the closing of Vatican II, the pair lifted the mutual “excom-
munications“ launched in 1054.

- On May 19, 1964, Paul VI constituted the “Secretariat for
Non-Christians”, and so “Observers” and “Delegates” of the var-
ious non-Christian religions could enter the Council. At the Fourth
Session, they already numbered 103.

- Later on, Paul VI would give his “pastoral” and his “ring” to
the Burmese Buddhist U’thant, Secretary General of the UN.

- And on November 13 , 1964 , he would depose the “tiara” (the
“triregno”) on the altar, definitively renouncing it. A gesture that
was the objective of the “French Revolution”, and which brings
to mind the words of the Freemason Albert Pike:

«The inspirers, the philosophers, and the his-
torical leaders of the French Revolutions had
sworn to overthrow the “CROWN” and the
“TIARA” on the tomb of Jacques de Molay» 23 .

However, this gesture of Paul Vi’s was but the exteriorization of
that which he had already manifested on December 7, 1965, at the
conclusion of Vatican II, in the homily in which he said:

«Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible
anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied
the Council. The religion of the God who became
man has met the religion - for such it is - of man
who makes himself God. And what happened?

Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There

23 Vol. II, p. 156.

126

could have been, but there was none. The old sto-
ry of the Samaritan has been the model of the spir-
ituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sym-
pathy has permeated the whole of it».

Now, apart from the “Samaritan” that has nothing to do with it
(the “Good Samaritan”, in fact, stooped compassionately over a hu-
man being and not over a religion), here, instead, one can but re-
mark that “the religion of man who makes himself God” is that
same religion of Freemasonry, as the Grand Master of the “Grand
Orient” of France Jacques Mitterand had clearly expressed, in
one of his speeches, saying:

«Teilhard de Chardin has committed the crime
of Lucifer, for which the Freemasons have been
much reproached by Rome: in the phenomenon
of “humanization”, or, to use Teilhard’s formula,
of the “Noosphere”, that is in that mass of con-
sciences enveloping the globe, it is man that
stands at the forefront. When this conscience
reaches its apogee, the “Omega Point” - as Teil-
hard says - man is such as we wish him to be,
free in the flesh and in the spirit. Thus Teilhard
has elevated man to the altar, and, worshipping
him, he could not worship God» 24 .

Man who makes himself “god”, therefore, commits Lucifer’s
sin; he follows, that is, the counsel of the ancient Biblical serpent:
“Thou shall be as gods”, and thus he learnt the rebellion to God.
Now, that, in a nutshell, is the content of the philosophy of the Je-
suit heretical theologian (?!) Teilhard de Chardin, sectarian
Freemason of the Martinist Order 25 .

It must be noted that this Jesuit heretic was one of the “mas-
ters” of Vatican II, through, in particular, his disciple De Lubac,

24 Cited by Rene Valneve: “Teilhard l’Apostate”, Volpe, 1971 edition, p. 52.

25 “Chiesa Viva”, July-August 1993.

127

whom, although banished by Pius XII 26 , was reintegrated by John
XXIII, who even called him as “consultant” at the Council. Paul
VI, then, in closing the Thomist Congress, “in the hall of the
Chancery, insisted that de Lubac speak of Teilhard de Chardin” 27 .

At this juncture, we also recall what the Pauline Father
Rosario Esposito - author of reiterated professions of Masonic
faith - wrote in his book: “The Great Concurrences Between
Church and Freemasonry”, where, in the biographical index, he
informs us that among the protagonists of the “bilateral dialogues”
between exponents of the Church and Freemasonry, which took
place between 1966 and 1977, was the Salesian Don Vincenzo Mi-
ano, secretary of the “Secretariat for the Non-believers” and au-
thor of a book titled: “The Secretariat for the Non-believers and
Freemasonry”. Now, Don Miano participated in all those dia-
logues, “illustrating, afterward, the positions reached by the
Holy Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and Paul VI in per-
son, who followed and encouraged these meetings” 28 .

No wonder, then, that Paul VI decided to have in the Executive
Committee for a “Concordant Bible”, the Grand Master of the
Grand Orient of Italy, professor Gamberini, who was amongst
the founders of the “Gnostic Church of Italy”, in which he holds
the position of “bishop”, under the pseudonym of Julianus. Now, the
“Gnostic Church” is the “Satanist church”, officially founded, in
France, in 1888, by the Freemason Jules Doinel.

And what do we say of Paul VI when, on March 23, 1966, he
put on the finger of Dr. Ramsey, secular and Freemason, Anglican
Archbishop of Canterbury, his “new conciliar ring” and then im-
parted, together with him, the “blessing” to those present?

And what do we say when, on June 3, 1971, he received in a
public audience, at the Vatican, members of the “Masonic
Lodge” of the B’nai B’rith, the most powerful Masonic Lodge,
restricted to Jews?

26 Encyclical “Humani Generis”.

27 H. Urs von Balthasar: “Father Henri de Lubac”, Jaca Book, 1978 edition, p.
20 - 21 .

28 Father Rosario Esposito, cited works, Nardini, 1987 edition, p. 420.

128

And how do you explain that, through Cardinal Bea, the Freema-
sons managed to obtain, at the Council, the “Decree” on “Religious
Freedom”, and exulted at the victory of “false ecumenism” and
“collegiality”? Paul Vi s relentless, stealthy action had met their
hopes: the advent of “democracy” in the Church, and, through it,
the so much yearned-for realization of a “universal religion”,
which was then set off with contracting, syncretistically, the “Ecu-
menical Movement” of Assisi.

One further evidence lies in the words of Cardinal Franz
Koenig, whom, closing a Convention, at Prague, on “The Opera-
tive Alliance Between Religion and Science”, said:

«The best forces of humanity must converge to-
ward a new cosmopolitism, which cannot be re-
alized without a rediscovery of the spiritual val-
ues, capable of leading humanity toward an
harmonious communal living» 29 .

Indeed, is the “Masonic presence”, perhaps, not distinctly visi-
ble, by now, even in the “Ecumenical Movement” and in the struc-
tures of the “World Council of the Churches”?

But to those familiar with the Gnostic principle at the base of
Freemasonry, the intrusion of Freemasonry in each and every
“Church” will not certainly come as a surprise.

In England, for example, the early statutes of the “Mother
Lodge” were the work of an ecclesiastic, and ever since Anglican-
ism and Freemasonry have been enjoying a perfect marriage. But
also the totalities of the Protestant “Monarchies” were, and still
are, “Masonic”. The “Slavic Monarchy” and the “Orthodox
Churches” are Masonic as well.

And what about the Catholic Church?

- The philosopher Augusto Del Noce, commenting on the top-
icality of Benson’s “Master of the World”, wrote:

29 “II Sabato” of November 24, 1990.

129

«(Catholicism is) re-incorporated into Masonic
ecumenism, and in this sense Freemasonry can
present itself, today, and so it does, as the most
moderate of secularisms: Catholicism is not perse-
cuted, but, in fact, re-incorporated. Under certain
conditions, in unitary ecumenism a Catholic rite
section may well subsists

In fact, the infiltration of Freemasonry even in the ordinary ec-
clesiastical structures has been ongoing for many years now, as the
renowned (pro)-Mason, the “Pauline” Father Rosario Esposito,
also affirms:

«... Brothers active in organized Catholic groups,
heading diocesan and regional groups of lay peo-
ple committed to the Catholic Action, in Scouting;
and Brothers enjoying the full confidence of the
bishops, to the point that, in some cases, they are
proactively collaborating in the drafting of docu-
ments and Pastoral Letters, in which no one has
ever found to be doctrinal.

Other collaborations are engaged in the operation of
Catholic institutions and enterprises, such as educa-
tional institutes, hospitals, clinics, management of
Charities and Philanthropic societies, which, from
time immemorial, and even for recent constitution,
include, in their executive Committees, the pres-
ence of the bishop and of managers of structures
traditionally chaired by a Freemason* 30 .

Of this friendship between Paul VI and Freemasonry, let us see,
as a sample, his official reception of a representation of the Jewish
Freemasonry of the B’nai B’rith on June 3, 1971, in which he ad-
dressed them as “My dear friends”.

30 Rosario Esposito, “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freema-
sonry”, Florence, 1987, p. 387.

130

Is it credible that Paul VI ignored that the Jewish Freemasonry
of the B’nai B’rith, in the United States, was (and still is) in a re-
lentless struggle to wipe out all traces of Christian institutions? 31

- On November 28, 1977, a dispatch of A.T.I. (Agenzia
Telegrafica Giudea, or Jewish Telegraph Agency) informed that
«The Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the “League
Against Defamation” of the B’nai B’rith (ADL) announce the es-
tablishment of a common work group devoted to examining the
issues relating to the faith of the Jews and of the Catholics» 32 .

- And on May 7, 1978, A.T.I. announced that on the coming
May 10, Paul VI would be receiving the representatives of the
B’nai B’rith, bearers of a 16 page “document” concerning the
“Holocaust” 33 .

Freemasonry had thus not only entered the grass-root-Church,
but also the echelon of the Vatican, both with clerics and secular.
The siege is “closing-in round the throne of the Pope” 34 .

But that was nothing new. The penetration had been in progress
for almost two centuries. John Paul II, for example, attributed the
Pontifical suppression of the “Society of Jesus” to the work of
Freemasonry 35 . That means the “enemies” of the Church have al-
ways found the gates of the Vatican quite more than ajar 36 . And that
is even admitted into the highest levels 37 .

Father Raimondo Spiazzi, so writes, on the subject:

31 Emmanuel Ratier, “Mysteres et Secrets du B’nai B’rith”, Facta Edition, Paris
1993. p. 105 and subsequent.

32 A.T.I., Dispatch n. 1744, year 1977.

33 “Lectures Framjaises”, n. 254, June 1978, p. 6. The “B’nai B’rith” is the most
powerful Masonic organization in the world, reserved exclusively to Jews. It en-
tertained excellent relations with cardinal Bea, whom, together with Jules Isaac,
revised Catholic thinking on the Jews (weekly “Look” of January 25, 1966; Leon
de Poncins, all his works).

34 “II Sabato” of August 10, 1991, p. 25.

35 Lucio Brinelli, in “II Sabato” of October 6, 1990.

36 “D Sabato” of November 24, 1990; and “30 Giorni” of January 1991.

37 Raimondo Spiazzi: “Cardinal Siri Archbishop of Genoa From 1946 to
1987”, Bologna 1990.

131

«As to the Conclaves of the future, Siri used to
say one should pray in order to obtain the grace
that the prospective participants be truly free from
any partisan influence and influx, not only of an
ethical and political nature, but even social. And
that no sect lay its hand onto these! [Conclaves]
concluded he. He was referring to Freemasonry,
which he claimed have knowledge, through direct
confidences, received by affiliates, and knowing
the schemes through which Freemasonry attempt-
ed to tighten its grip on men and organs of the Vat-
ican, (He did not hesitate to name a few), and with
the danger that threatened to extend its grip onto
the Conclave. Perhaps it was also on the account
of that, that he proposed the abolition of the secret:
that all will take place in broad daylight ! »

Pope Albino Luciani, too, was aware of the Masonic danger 3 ®.

The Pope himself was quite controversial with the IOR [Institute for
Religious Works; financial arm of the Vatican], at a time the “Cor-
riere” [Corriere della Sera, Italy’s major daily] was in the hands of
the IOR, and the P2 [outlawed P2 Masonic Lodge, of Grand Master
Licio Gelli] chose its directors 39 . Naturally, however, the IOR could
not have acted without the guarantee of the Secretary of State.

Regrettably, even the public and repeated admission of the
Grand Master Salvini as to the current affiliation to Freema-
sonry of various “High Ecclesiastics” fell on deaf ears.

In another “letter” to Giordano Gamberini, (then Grand Master
of Italian Freemasonry), Don Rosario Esposito says: «A series of
Paul Vi’s decisions are an indiscriminate opening toward
F reemasonry» 40 .

And the lawyer Mario Bacchiega, of Rovigo, professor of His-
tory of Religions at a Roman faculty (and running a broadcast for a

38 “U Sabato” of December 29, 1990.

39 “U Giornale” of 8 March 1991; of April 30, 1991.

40 “Rivista Massonica”, August 1978, p. 371 and subsequent.

132

regional TV, explaining ideals and rites of the “Sons of the Light”),
asked «What reliable testimonies exist as to the affiliation of Ec-
clesiastics to Freemasonry », replied: «I saw many clergymen at
the Lodge, and never the lower clergy: they were always people
of high office» 41 .

Speaking of the Vatican II, Lawyer Mario Bacchiega affirmed
twice - in December of 1962 and in November of 1963 - that the

bishop of the Mexican diocese of Quernavaca, Monsignor Sergio
Mendez Arceo, intervened pleading that the “excommunication”
of the Freemasons be dropped, as “by now there were many ec-
clesiastics affiliated” 42 .

And the former Grand Master of the “Grand Orient of
Italy”, Giuliano Di Bernardo, on the “Corriere della Sera” of
March 23, 1991, had said: «We will react to the attacks of the
Pope; we have high Prelates in our midst».

***

At this point the truthfulness of that “Pecorelli’s List” [Mino
Pecorelli, director of “OP” (“Osservatorio Politico Intemazionale”;
or “International Political Observer”) Magazine, murdered for un-
veiling covert political and criminal schemes involving high ranking
politicians, Freemasons, prelates, business, and organized crime]
should come as no surprise. Even “Panorama” Magazine of August
10, 1976, carrying its own list - pretending to sell it as unreliable -
does not hesitate, however, to state, «If the list were authentic, the
Church would be in the hands of the Freemasons. Paul VI
would be altogether surrounded by them. Nay, they would have
been his great electors and would then have directed him in his
most important decisions during these 13 years of pontificate.
And, prior to that, they would have been the ones to push Vati-
can II Council onto the path of reforms».

All true - one would say - if one consider that the said “list” in-
cludes the names of two Cardinals (Villot and Casaroli) whom, in

41 “Ecclesiasts in the Lodge” by Andrea Tornelli.

42 Idem.

133

point of fact, have been Secretary of State of the Holy See; and it
also includes that of another Cardinal (Poletti) Paul VI appointed
as Vicar of Rome, that is, as his own representative in the govern-
ment of that diocese.

And what to say, then, when that list also features as affiliated to
Freemasonry other most authoritative Prelates, such as Cardinal
Baggio and Cardinal Suenens and others?

Let us see, here, at least the most important and closer collabo-
rators of Paul VI:

1st - Monsignor Pasquale Macchi

Paul Vi’s personal Secretary from 1954 to 1978. Now then, even
his name is included in the “Pecorelli’s List”, amongst the “alleged
Freemasons”, with each “entry” well detailed: Affiliation:
23/4/1958; Registration: 5463/2; Monogram: MAPA.

2nd - Cardinal Jean Villot

I also will talk, in detail, in Chapter VII of this book about his
affiliation to Freemasonry. He was for long years Paul Vi’s Secre-
tary of State, and later, up until his death (March 9, 1979), John
Paul I’s and John Paul II’s. His name was also published in the
monthly “Lectures Frangaises”, among other ecclesiastics affiliat-
ed to Freemasonry. The Cardinal wrote a letter to the director of the
Magazine, denying “any contacts at any time with Freemason-
ry”. But it is the typical denial every affiliate is bound to, especial-
ly in the higher degrees. But, as always, the truth will come out.
Even for him, therefore, for he was betrayed just after his death, res-
urrecting among his things also a book titled: “Life and Perspec-
tive of Traditional Freemasonry”, by Jean Tourniac, “Grand Ora-
tor” of the Grand National Lodge of France”. On the book title
page, appear two dedications, scribbled out to his name: one, of
the author himself; the other, of the Grand Master of the same
Lodge.

That, too, is another “evidence” of what General G. Leconte, of
the French “Secret Services”, and Officer Masmay (see Chapter
VII) had stated to me; namely: «even the parents of the Freemason
Cardinal Villot were Freemasons of the Rosecrucian Lodge».

After all, his theological positions and his ideals were always in
the sphere of the various cardinals and bishops that appear in the list

134

F R ANC-MACONNJERI E

T R AD 1 JTl i j JS NE LLE

VI3 ET

PERSPECTIVES

DE LA

JEAN IQllptSlAC

rj-r. la

Ft AlJC'-MAgONWERJ. D

TRAC'tTin.^lXLLC.i;

A"-U* -

*-l imt rui

P§ L«l

4<£w ^ t

‘ ff

UMAIk'E SE&nt^

of Pecorelli’s “Osservatorio Politico” (OP) Magazine, where he
also reports his exact “data”: Affiliation: 6/8/1966; Registration:
041/3; Monogram: JEANNI.

3rd - Cardinal Agostino Casaroli

He, too, appears in Mino Pecorelli’s list, with these “entries”:
Affiliation: 28/9/1957; Registration: 41/076; Monogram: CASA.

The Pauline, Father Rosario Esposito, in his book: “The Great
Concurrences Between Church and Freemasonry” 43 refers that
Casaroli, on October 20, 1985, on the occasion of the celebrations of
the 40 th anniversary of the United Nations held, at St. Patrick’s
Church, in New York, gave “a long-winded homily”, whose con-
tents “confirm that the concurrences between the Church and
Freemasonry may be considered actually achieved” 44 .

43 Rosario Esposito, “The Great Concurrences Between Church and Freema-
sonry”, Nardini Editions, Florence 1987.

44 As above, p. 210.

135

That Cardinal Casaroli is a “Freemason” is also proven by his
excessive praise for the Jesuit heretic and Freemason Teilhard de
Chardin, in an unspeakable “letter” he sent, on behalf of the Pope,
to Monsignor Poupard, rector of Paris’ “Istitut Catholique”, on the
occasion of the celebration of the centenary of Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin’s birth. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient, Jacques Mit-
terand, in an address to the General Assembly of the Lodge held at
Paris from September 3 to 7, 1967, had claimed that Freemasonry
was the basis of Jacques Mitterand’s publications, and had openly
said: «one fine day, there sprung up from their ranks a genuine
scientist: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin», underscoring that «the
ideas of the Jesuit Teilhard coincide with those of Freemasonry ».

Now, only a “Freemason” could have written such a “Letter”,
giving body to a heretic apostate - mediocre scientist, mediocre
philosopher, and mediocre theologian, - whom, to a Dominican
friend (one who had in turn thrown away the habit), had manifested
his plans of “renovation” of the Church in a neo-Modernist key.

Counsel Ermenegildo Benedetti, former “Grand Orator” of the
“Grand Orient of Italy” (thus “number two”, behind the Grand
Master - who was then Lino Salvini - of Italian Freemasonry), al-
so offered a further “evidence” of Casaroli’s affiliation to Freema-
sonry. In fact, on the weekly “OGGI” of June 17, 1981, speaking
to the “Brothers” he had declared: «It was said of Monsignor Bet-
tazzi, of Monsignor Casaroli (...). Let there be no doubt about
it: that it was not mere talk; that it was ‘confidential informa-
tion’ we at the top of Italian Freemasonry used to exchanges (I
would have you note that “not mere talk”, but authentic “confi-
dential information”).

Finally, in confirmation that Cardinal Casaroli is a “Freema-
son”, I can note that even the present Pope, John Paul II, made
admission of it. In fact, on October 15, 1984, 1 received the visit of
an archbishop (with his secretary), close collaborator of the Pope.
Among other things, he told me he had shown the Pontiff my arti-
cle, “The New Concordat” (on “Chiesa Viva” n° 145), whose first
signatory was in fact Cardinal Casaroli. Now, the Archbishop
told me that he had remarked to the Pope that my article emphasized
Cardinal Casaroli’s inclusion in the Masonic lists. The Pope, then,
pounding three times his fist on the table, cried out: «I know! I
know! I know!».

136

4th - Cardinal Ugo Poletti

He was Vicar of Rome, thus Paul Vi’s representative in the
government of the Diocese of Rome. He also appears on Mino
Pecorelli’s “list” of “alleged Freemasons”, with detailed “entries”:
Affiliation: 17/2/1969; Registration: 43/179; Monogram: UPO.

5th - Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio

He, too, is enrolled in the Masonic lists 45 , with detailed “en-
tries”: Affiliation: 14/8/1957; Registration: 85/2640; Monogram:
SEBA. He was Prefect of the “Congregation for the Bishops”,
and, therefore, in charge of the appointment of the new bishops, in
spite of his alleged affiliation to the Masonic sect, hence he could
flood dioceses worldwide with those affiliated to Lodges, or pro-
Freemasons Figures.

6th - Cardinal Joseph Suenens

He too appears in the “Pecorelli’s list”, with detailed “entries”:
Affiliation: 15/6/1967; Registration: 21/64; Monogram: IESU.

I would have you note, moreover, that he was a most authori-
tative exponent of the “Pax Christi”, an organization in which po-
litical-social commitment overwhelms all of the religious commit-
ment. It also proves his manifesto on disarmament of May of 1982,
wherein God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints are not even
mentioned, while the whole discussion is hinged on the prospect of
“World Government”, or “Universal Republic” which Freema-
sonry has been longing for ever since its inception, as it is seen in
the “Anderson’s Constitutions” of 1723, fundamental text of the
whole Masonic sect.

On September 24, 1970, Suenens had already held a conference,
at a Masonic gathering, organized by the Jewish High Freemasonry
of the B’nai B’rith, in which he had brought the Church closer to
that Masonic sect which the pre-conciliar Church had always anath-
emized 46 .

45 “Panorama”, “OP”, “Introibo”, “Lectures Francaises”, “Agenzia Euroitalia”.

46 Yann Moncomble: “Les Professionels de l’Antiracisme”, by Yann Mon-
comble, Paris 1987, p. 277.

137

It is no secret that he was also one of the great electors of Paul
Vi’s 47 , whom, afterwards, promptly appointed him as “Moderator”
of the Council.

But Cardinal Suenens, for the nomination of Paul VI - which
was preferred, agreeable, and determined - attended a sort of “pre-
Conclave”, held at Grottaferrata, [a village on the outskirts of
Rome, near the village of Castelgandolfo, where the Pontifical sum-
mer residence is located] in the villa of Umberto Ortolani, the fa-
mous member of Licio Gelli’s P2 Lodge 48 .

Congressman Andreotti, in his book: “A ogni morte di Papa”
[literally: “At Every Pope’s Passing”; also Italian for saying “Once
in a blue moon”], speaking of that gathering, recounts that one of
the participants told him: «more or less seriously, that the canon-
ical majority was already wrapped up» 49 .

7th - Bishop Annibale Bugnini

Paul VI put him in charge of the implementation of the
“Liturgical Revolution”, the one who Pope John XXIII had
kicked out of the Pontifical University in which he was teaching.
But Paul VI called him back, appointing him First Secretary of the
“Concilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Litur-
gia”, and, afterwards, Secretary of the “Congregation for the Di-
vine Worship”. But when a Cardinal produced “evidence” of
Monsignor Bugnini’s affiliation to Freemasonry 50 to Paul VI, he
was forced to send him away from Rome (but why not dismiss
him?) dispatching him as a “pro-Nuncio” to Teheran (Iran).

In order to understand who this monsignor, Freemason and rev-
olutionary of the Liturgy, really was, I would have you read what

47 “30 Giorni” of July 7, 1992, p. 45.

48 “30 Gironi” of September 3, 1993, in “His Eminence’s Friends” by Andrea
Tornielli, p. 37, subtitled: “The Conclave at the Villa”.

49 Also on the same subject, “The Non-Elected Pope” by Bennylai, Laterza,
1993 edition, p. 202.

50 Also the “list” of the freemasons, published by counsel and journalist Mino
Pecorelli, on his “L’Osservatore Politico” magazine (“OP”), with dates and en-
tries: Affiliation: 23/4/1963; Registration: 1365/75; Monogram: BUAN.

138

“Avvenire” magazine - “Religious Information” (of February 24,
1973, p. 5) reported: «(...) Two ceremonies (Mass for the students
of the Catholic schools, and Mass of the youth)... also intended
to be an example of liturgical experimentation, carefully studied
and properly implemented: first, through sacred dances and an
“Anaphora” [Eucharistic prayer of the Roman Rite] prepared
for the occasion; then with the accompaniment of an authentic
‘pop’ band. After attending the two liturgies, Monsignor Anni-
bale Bugnini, Secretary of the Congregation for the Divine Wor-
ship, said it had been the highlight of the celebration; a great ex-
ample of the ultimate solution for the problems that must be
solved in the liturgical movement: the recovery in the liturgy of
the traditional exterior sign of the sacred, such as dance, and the
employment of new instruments and chants, adapted to the
mentality of young people today».

It was and is a “Masonic scheme”, destined to become a sad
and distressing reality.

8th - Bishop Paul Marcinkus

He was President of the “Istituto Opere di Religione” (IOR).
He is also listed among the “alleged Freemasons” of the “Pecorel-
li’s List”, with “entries”: Affiliation: 21/681967; Registration:
43/649; Monogram: MARPA.

He was involved in obscure financial dealings, in very close col-
laboration with Freemasonry 51 .

***

For reasons of space, the names of the Prelates affiliated to
Freemasonry reported here are not exhaustive. The names that ap-
pear in the ranks of command of Paul VI, are many more than those
cited. Here it will suffice to name two more, of major significance:

51 Nick Tosches: “The Sindona Mystery”, Sugar ed., 1986, p. 138. “La Stam-
pa” of January 10, 1994, under the title: “Di Pietro [renown District Attorney in
the so called “Clean-Hands” criminal proceedings, and currently a Senator] In-
vestigates the Monsignor of the IOR”.

139

Cardinal Koenig and Cardinal Lienart.

9th - Cardinal Franz Koenig

This “Freemasonic cardinal” was Archbisop of Vienna, where
he was Primate. He underwent two “legal proceedings”, both of
which recognized his affiliation to Freemasonry. (He was acquit-
ted for the only reason that “Freemasonry” in Austria is legally rec-
ognized).

A German writer, E. K., “could prove”, in court, the affiliation
of Cardinal Koenig to Freemasonry. Had his been a false accusa-
tion, the court would have sentenced him to a year in prison for
“perjury”; on the contrary, there was not even a fine 52 .

Even the Catholic newspaper “DRM”, through its director,
Benedikt Gunther, spoke of that “lawsuit” the Cardinal had filed
against that German teacher and writer, E. K., whom, however,
“could prove Cardinal Koenig’s affiliation to Freemasonry”. But
the director also wrote that on April 18, 1967, another writer had al-
ready informed the Cardinal of a scandal in the parish church of Vi-
enna-Hetzendorf, in which there were three blasphemous emblems,
painted by order of a Freemason of a high degree, but that the Car-
dinal never answered that letter in over ten years. However, that Di-
rector of “DRM”, in his “registered letter”, reiterates that, in that
“Proceedings” against the Cardinal “evidence has been forward-
ed of your affiliation to the Masonic Lodge”... whereas against
that writer no condemnation was issued. And he wraps up his letter
inviting Cardinal Koenig, for the salvation of his soul, “to immedi-
ately leave the Masonic Lodge”.

Another evidence of Cardinal Koenig’s affiliation to “Freema-
sonry” may be traced in his “greetings” to the Convention of As-
sisi, on August 22, 1988. The inventor of that “Peace Council” was
the representative of the “New Age”, Heizsafrer, who looks forward
to the advent of a “world religion”, which is indeed the Masonic
scheme 53 . Now, the “Freemason” Cardinal Koenig sent his “greet-
ings” to that Convention. It must be noted that the “true Peace” of

52 “Chiesa Viva”, n. 68, p. 18-19.

53 “Der Schwarze Brief’ of August 11, 1988.

140

Cardinal Koenig lies in the “Nuova Spes”, which provides for a
“New International Order”. A “peace”, that is, which corresponds
to the new Masonic image of the “new man” 54 .

Even the official historian of Italian Freemasonry, Professor
Aldo Mola, points to Koenig as a member of Freemasonry -
based on information from a “very high and very well informed
dignitary from Palazzo Giustiniani” - as a member of a covert
Roman Lodge 55 .

Another serious evidence against him is: that he, together with
the Grand Master Delegate of Austrian Freemasonry, Dr. Kurt
Baresch, was the promoter of the Commission that approved the
“Declaration” of Lichtenau of July 5, 1970, drafted by Rolf Ap-
pel, member of the Senate of the Grand United Lodges of Ger-
man Freemasonry. It was elaborated and undersigned by a Mason-
ic-Catholic Joint Commission. It sets out with an entreaty to the
“Grand Architect of the Universe”, that is, to the god of Freema-
sonry, and it concludes looking forward to the revocation of the
countless condemnations issued by the Catholic Church against that
sect, particularly of the Canon Law Code’s Canons of 1917, which
provide for the “excommunication” of Freemasons.

Finally, one must not forget that, at the Council, it was Cardinal
Koenig who recommended to the Conciliar Fathers to “finally take
into consideration the ideas (!!) of Teilhard de Chardin on evo-
lutionism”.

10th - Cardinal Achille Lienart

He appears as “Freemason” in various lists, as in “Introibo” of
July, 1976 and on the Italian weekly “11 Borghese” [The Bour-
geois]. He was “initiated” to Freemasonry at Cambrai in 1912, and
in 1924, he was even elevated to 30 th degree of the ancient and ac-
cepted Scottish rite.

The Freemason Monsieur B., (healed, then, at Lourdes on July
19, 1932; with the healing recognized also by the “Bureau des Con-

54 Idem.

55 Aldo Mola, “History of Italian Freemasonry From the Origins to Our

Days”, Bompiani, 1992 edition, p. 744.

141

statations” on July 18, 1933) narrated that, at the time in which he
frequented the Lodges, he used to meet there with Cardinal Lie-
nart. It must be known that it was Cardinal Lienart who on October
14, 1962, during the First Session of the works of Vatican II,
sparked the rebellion against the study and work plans that the var-
ious Commissions of the Roman Curia had prepared, rejecting even
the names the Curia had proposed for the composition of the vari-
ous Commissions 56 .

Cardinal Lienart, in addition, was also one of the leaders of that
organized group of Northern European Conciliar Fathers of a liber-
al bent, who took control of the Council, steering it toward those
new and unexpected shores which are still destroying the Church.

It is quite understandable, therefore, that this Freemason
Cardinal, on his deathbed, had exclaimed: «Humanly speaking,
the Church is lost» 57 .

***

At this juncture, perhaps one will ask oneself whether the au-
thenticity of those “Masonic lists” had been verified or not, for it
would be disconcerting that Freemasonry, condemned and de-
nounced by the pre-conciliar Church from time immemorial, could,
today, after Paul VI, come to acquire such an enormous power -
even though still hidden and uncontrollable - upon the entire
Catholic Church. Thus before wrapping up our theme on the open-
ing of Paul VI to Freemasonry, it is opportune that we say a word
about the components in our possession in order to corroborate the
authenticity of those “lists” which were the object of so many dis-
cussions.

First of all, it is opportune to pause on the question of the “se-
cret” of that Freemasonry sect, for Freemasonry has always been
and still is a “Secret Society”, whose doings are carried out unbe-
knownst to all, and whose members remain surrounded by the most

56 Peter Hebblethwaite, “John XXIII, The Pope of the Council”, Rusconi, 1989
edition, p. 618.

57 “Tradition-Information” n. 7, p. 21.

142

rigorous mystery. That has been demonstrated, of late, even by the
publicized occurrence of the P2 Lodge, which enlisted people of the
most diverse and contradictory labels, both political and ideological.
Hence it is pure simplemindedness to affirm that the P2 was a “De-
viated” Lodge, when the official historian of Italian Freemasonry,
Professor Aldo Mola in person, in an “interview” to “II Sabato”
magazine of December 26, 1992, affirmed that the P2 «was not a
deviated lodge, but it was necessary to sacrifice it so that it
would not be discovered that true Freemasonry was covert».

Having clarified that, we can move on to the reliability of the
principal “list” appeared on “OP” (Osservatorio Politico Inter-
nazionale) Magazine of September 12, 1978, thus subsequent to that
which came out on “Panorama” Magazine of August 10, 1976.

Hence, we point out:

1st - That some cardinals requested clarifications as to the lists,
and that Paul VI was forced to comply, entrusting the task to Mon-
signor Benelli, whom, in turn, passed the task over to Carabinieri
General Enrico Mino 58 . This, on the basis of the investigations, ex-
pressed his conviction that the list was reliable 59 . Cardinal Siri, too,
used the service of General Mino, in mid 1977, for investigations in
“Panorama” Magazine. Unfortunately, the General passed away on
October 31 that year, in the Calabria region, on Mount Rovello, un-
der more than suspicious circumstances 60 , carrying with him to the
grave the outcome of his investigation. But there remain, however,
some mysterious telephone calls in which Licio Gelli (Venerable
of the P2 Lodge) spoke of the “succession” to General Mino, pri-
or to the General’s tragic accident.

2 nd - The “Pecorelli’s List” found credit even in the Vatican,
where a young employee - nephew of a (well known) ecclesiastic
(Father P. E.) - had handed a series of delicate “documents” to

58 “30 Giorni” of November 11, 1992, p. 30 and subsequent.

59 As above, p. 32.

60 “30 Giorni” of November 11, 1992, p. 34-35.

143

Monsignor Benelli, then Substitute of the Secretary of State, who
made him swear «that he was not lying about so grave a mat-
ter» 61 . Some photocopies of those “documents” were also in the
possession of Cardinal Staffa 62 .

I had “assurance” of this “fact” from a cardinal of the Cu-
ria 63 , who later also gave me some photocopies of those same “doc-
uments”.

3rd - The “Card Numbers”, reported on the “Pecorelli’s List”,
confer a more than credible spin, since Pecorelli was a member of
the P2 Lodge (and thus in the know of “secret things”), but also for
the reason that, with that list, he had just invited the scarcely elect-
ed Pope Luciani to a rigorous control, with the intention of offering
a valid contribution to the transparency of the Catholic Church Her-
self.

In any case, that “list” should have sparked off either a shower
of denials or a purge in the ecclesial ranks. On the contrary, not a
single “denial” was to be had. As for “purges”, besides, the newly
elected Pontiff did not even have the time, perhaps even “because”
Pope Luciani, “who had manifested the intention of having a
hand in the issue of the IOR and shed a light as to the list of al-
leged Prelates affiliated to Freemasonry”, He, too, passed away
in circumstances and ways as yet unknown 64 . What is more, Mi-
no Pecorelli, the author of that “list”, was gunned down a few
months later, on March 20, 1979; hence, with him, were buried all
of the other “secrets” concerning that Masonic sect in his posses-
sion.

Now, one could ask oneself: why is it that all of the “listed” in
that “Masonic list” have never come together in order to deny that
public denunciation, complete with detailed “entries” (Affiliation,

61 “II Sabato” of August 10, 1991, p. 21 and subsequent.

62 On “30 Giorni” of June 6, 1992, three are reproduced.

63 We omit, here, the name of this Cardinal, as he did not authorize us to publi-
cize it.

64 Also “30 Giorni” of September 9, 1993, p. 44-45.

144

Registration, Monogram), asking the courts for a clarifying in-
vestigation, at least on the graphological analysis of the
acronyms at the foot of the documents? How not to recognize,
then, that that lack of denials and that prolonged silence are more
than eloquent as they take on the value of circumstantial evidence
of the greatest import?

The only one to be removed from office was - as we noted -
Monsignor Bugnini, the main author of that revolutionary liturgical
reform that upset, in a Lutheran form, the bi-millennial rite of the
Holy Mass, but it was only after the presentation to Paul VI of the
“evidence” of his belonging to the Masonic sect, that he was sent
away from Rome and dispatched as a “pro-Nuncio” to Iran.

However, another serious confirmation of the “Pecorelli’s
list” appeared also on the weekly “OGGI” of June 17, 1981, already
mentioned, under the title: “Salvini Confided to Me Names of Peo-
ple Above Suspicions”. It is an interview with Counsel Ermenegildo
Benedetti, of Massa Carrara, former “Grand Orator” of the “Grand
Orient of Italy”, and thus N° 2 of Italian Freemasonry. Now, in that
interview, he said: “It was being said of Monsignor Bettazzi, of
Monsignor Casaroli, of Cardinal Poletti, of Father Cap rile, writer
of “Civilta Cattolica” magazine, and of Bishop Marcinkus, the man
of Vatican finances, the so called “Banker of God”. The buzz about
these people had been around since 1970. Let it be no doubt about
it: it was not mere talk; it was “confidential information” we at
the top of Italian Freemasonry used to pass on to one another”.

And here, I would have you note:

1 st , that the names uttered by him are all to be found in the
“Pecorelli’s list”;

2 nd , that they were not “voices”, but “confidential informa-
tion”, current in the high degrees of Italian Freemasonry. Now, no
Prelate involved has ever come forward to sue the high Mason-
ic dignitary, despite the wide diffusion, on a national scale, of that
weekly.

The theme of our investigation may as well stop at this stage, at

145

the “mole” Pecorelli, who was able to infiltrate the archives of the
“Grand Orient” and extract those confidential documents.

Having outlined, in this way, the boundaries of our work, we
may also comprehend the question that, certainly, will spring up in
many minds: «If such was the situation of 1976-78, who, then,
was Paul VI to hand the Church over to so little worthy a staff
of Cardinals and Bishops, radically different from those who
preceded them?».

A shattering question, which immediately brings to mind a writ-
ing of Prince Scortesco, German cousin of Prince Borghese, chair
of the Conclave that elected Montini Supreme Pontiff; a “writ-
ing” containing the following information about the Conclave of
June 21, 1963:

«During the Conclave, a Cardinal stepped out
of the Sistine Chapel, met with representatives
of the B’nai B’rith, announced to them the elec-
tion of Cardinal Siri. These replied saying that
the persecutions against the Church would re-
sume immediately. Returning to the Conclave,
he had Montini elected».

Here, it would come natural to say: no comment! To me, how-
ever, that election of Paul VI brings to mind other elections of
Popes, such as that of Pius IX, upon whom the Masonic sect had
placed vague hopes of reconciliation with the “new ideas”. What
did happen, instead, is well known. Pius IX, instructed by his own
experiences, and, above all, enlightened by the Divine Light,
through his “Syllabus” reduced Liberalism, that is, Masonry, into
dust. Upon his death, however, Freemasonry believed the hour had
come for their revival and their triumph over the Church. The
Freemason Leone Gambetta 65 , when, on February 20, 1878, Leo
XIII was elected, thus wrote to a friend: «This shall be a great day.
The peace coming from Berlin, and, perhaps, the reconciliation

65 Leon Gambetta: French politician. Representative, House Speaker, and Prime
Minister. He died in 1882.

146

with the Vatican. The new Pope has been elected: He is that ele-
gant and sophisticated Cardinal Pecci, Bishop of Perugia, whom
Pius IX had attempted to snatch the tiara from, naming him Camer-
lengo. This Italian, more of a diplomat than he is an ecclesiastic, has
survived all the plots of the Jesuits and of the foreign clerics. He is
Pope, and the name he took of Leo XIII seems to me the best of
omens. I greet this event loaded with promises. He will not break
away openly from the traditions and declarations of his predecessor,
but his conduct, his acts, and his relations will be more meaningful
than his words, and if he does not die too soon, we may hope in a
convenient union with the Church».

The next day he wrote another letter: «Paris, February 22, 1978
- I am infinitely grateful to this new Pope for the name he dared to
take: he is a holy opportunist. Could we cut a deal? Who knows? As
the Italians say».

But Leo XIII “did not die too soon”. God granted him 25 years
of reign, and the Masonic sect had to postpone that “convenient
union with the Church”. In fact, Leo XIII, in four different occa-
sions, steadfastly confirmed Pius IX’s “Syllabus”, and truthfully
said of himself: «Our struggle has not only the defense and in-
tegrity of religion as an objective, but also that of civil society,
and the restoration of the principles that are the foundation of
peace and prosperity».

Freemasonry, however, always hoped in a speedy reconciliation
with the Church. On the Masonic Magazine “Acacia” of Septem-
ber, 1903, out came an article of F. Hiran, titled: “The Death of
Leo XIII”, in which he invoked a Pope who would “undo the ties
of dogmatism stretched to the extreme, who would not pay heed
to fanatical theologians and accusers of heresies, who would let
the exegetists work as they pleased, who would recommend and
practice tolerance toward the other religions, who would not re-
new the excommunication of Freemasonry” 66 .

66 Enrico Delassus, “The Problem of the Present Hour”, Desclee and C. Ti-
pografi-Editori 1907, vol. 1, p. 305.

147

But Freemasonry was to be disillusioned again, for the hand of the
Holy Spirit never appeared so evident as in the election of Pius X.

Unfortunately, the underlying maladies of the Church of the Vat-
ican II had long been around: the temptation of Protestantism, of
Marxism, and of Modernism, was already in the subconscious of
many Catholics; Vatican II would create the necessary conditions in
order that these tendencies would come to light and be retained as a
new orthodoxy.

Using the colorful expression of Cardinal Heenan, Vatican II
became a sort of “ecclesiastical safari”; to others, instead, it was
the long awaited occasion, and they, well organized, were able to
“hijack” it in the wanted direction. The German group, then, with
their allies and with a “Blitzkrieg” tactic, continuously pulverized
and demoralized their adversaries, skillfully using pressure groups.
Thus the majority of the Fathers gave in, often involuntarily, not to
be branded as a “Passatist” by the mass media, all hostile, by now,
to Tradition. In any case, the Conciliar documents, rather than the
work of the bishops that signed them, were the work of the “ex-
perts”, the fifth column of Modernism, whose main concern was
the ecumenism at any costs.

And thus went Vatican II, whose ambiguous texts will cause the

Anglican observer Gregory Baum to say:

«The Council has, therefore, admitted that the
Church of Christ is something wider than the
Roman Catholic Church”; and the other
Protestant observer, Oscar Cullmann, “All of
the texts are formulated so as not to shut any
door, and will not present in the future any ob-
stacle to discussions among Catholics, nor to
the dialogue with non- Catholics, as it was cus-
tomary, with the dogmatic decisions of the pre-
vious Councils».

Well, it is only in this neo-Modernist light that the “opera
omnia” of Paul VI during and following Vatican II, ought to be
seen.

148

THE “MASONIC PLAN”

FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

- «Our ultimate goal is that of Voltaire of the French Revolu-
tion: namely, the complete annihilation of Catholicism and even
of the Christian idea... With the passport of hypocrisy, we can
conspire with all our opportunity and reach, little by little, our goal.
(...). What we must try and wait for, as the Jews await the Messiah,
is a Pope according to our needs. (...). There is little to be done with
old Cardinals and with prelates of decided character. (...).

You must aim at the Youth: You must seduce the young! It is
necessary that you attract the youth, without them knowing it,
under the banner of secret societies. (...).

You want to revolutionize Italy? Look at the Pope of which we
have painted a picture. Do you want to establish the kingdom of the
elect upon the throne of the prostitute of Babylon? Let the clergy
walk under your flag, believing they are walking under the ban-
ner of the Apostolic Keys!

Widen your networks; extend them to the heart of the sacristy, sem-
inaries and convents (...). You must look for friends and ones that
will lead to the foot of the Apostolic See.

So you’ll discover a revolution in a tiara and cape, preceded by
the cross and banner, a revolution that will need a little help to
set fire to the four corners of the world.

The conspiracy against the Roman See should never be con-
fused with other projects. (...). None that conspire against
Rome! (...).

Catholicism, and even still less the monarchy, is not afraid of
the tip of a dagger, but these two bases of social order can fall
under the weight of corruption. They never tire of a bribe. (...)
Vice is popularized in multitudes. Those who breathe with the
five senses, and those who drink, will be drenched (...).

Make hearts vicious and you’ll have no more Catholics. Re-
move the priest from work, from the altar and from virtue:
have him look elsewhere to occupy his thoughts and his time.
Make him idle, glutinous (...); have him become ambitious, in-
triguing and perverse.

149

We have undertaken a great corruption, the corruption of the
people through the clergy and clergy through us, the corruption
that must lead to the burial of the Church!

The aim is very good for ambitious men like us (...)■ The best dag-
ger to assassinate the Church and strike at its heart is corrup-
tion. So work towards this end».

(Enrico Delassus, “II problema dell’ora presente”, Desclee e C.
Tipografi-Editori 1907, Vol. I, p. 582-625).

- Pope Leo XIII, in his 1884 encyclical against Freemasonry: “Hu-
manum genus”, having recognized the division of mankind into
two adverse and opposing camps: «the first is the kingdom of
God on earth, that is the true Church of Jesus Christ» and «the
second is the kingdom of Satan...». Further on, he affirms «The
ultimate goal of Freemasons being to persecute Christianity
with relentless hatred, and that they will never be at peace, - not
ever until they will not see all religious institutions founded by
the Popes on the earth». The Pope notes that «Wanting to de-
stroy the religion and the Church founded by God, Himself,
and His assurance of immortal life (...) is signal folly and auda-
cious impiety...»!

- After the publication of the “Humanum genus,” The Bulletin of
the Symbolic Scottish Grand Lodge expressed, in these terms, the
thought of the sect: «The Freemasonry can not help but thank the
Supreme Pontiff of the last encyclical. Leo XIII, with unquestion-
able authority, and with great luxury of evidence has demonstrated
once again that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the
Church of which he is the representative, and the Revolution, of
which Freemasonry is the right arm. It is good that the skeptics
cease to entertain vain hopes. All must get used to the under-
standing that one must come forward to re-choose between the
old order that rests on Revelation and new order which does
not recognize any other foundations then that of science and
human reason, in the spirit of authority and spirit of liberty».
(Enrico Delassus, “II problema dell’ora presente”, Desclee e C.
Tipografi-Editori 1907, vol. I, p. 39).

150

Nouveau Luther

LE CARDINAL SUI

se dr eise coutre la fMipciufe

The cover of French magazine: “Monde e vie” [“The World and Life”]. It was the latest
issue of the magazine, after which came out with this too meaningful presentation of the

“new Luther”!

151

A comer of the cemetery Verolavecchia, near Brescia (Italy), where the graves of family
Alghisi (the maternal family of Paul VI) rest.

At the base of the right tomb, dedicated to family Alghisi, the bas-relief erected with those
Masonic symbols.

The “bronze door” at St. Peter’s Basilica - Rome.

154

The “Doors of Good and Evil”

This is the “bronze door” of the sculptor, Luciano Minguzzi, called: “The Door
of Good and Evil” (see photo on previous page). It was put into place in 1977
and created in honor of the birthday of Paul VI (born Sept. 26. 1897).

When it was inaugurated, the “Panel of Good”, panel N ° 12, featured “The Sec-
ond Vatican Council”. It included the Four Council Fathers between John
XXIII and Paul VI.

While John XXIII and the four other Council Fathers were carved with the face
looking forward, Paul VI (the last on the right - a total of six figures in all) was
hand carved in profile, to present, clearly visible, his left hand with a clear Ma-
sonic symbol “the five-pointed star”, or “Masonic Pentalfa”.

Shortly after the inauguration of the “Bronze Door”, the undersigned [Fr. Luigi
Villa], went to see that “new door” of the Basilica of St. Peter and observed well,
seeing that Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Paul VI. Immediate-
ly, I went to a Cardinal to denounce what I had seen. The Cardinal assured me
that he would immediately take care of it.

In fact, shortly after, when I returned to Rome, I went to review the “bronze
door”, I noticed that Masonic sign on the back of the left hand of Pope Paul VI
had been scraped off: you could see the red copper. Realizing they were discov-
ered, then, they had seen to it: first, to scrape off the Masonic symbol. Then, - as
I saw on my return to Rome once again - they replaced the entire panel No. 12
with another, the current (see photo below) on which appeared not more than six
figures, but five, so far as I could see!

(For a better understanding of the tremendous significance of “five-pointed
star”, carved on the back of the left hand of Paul VI, as it appeared on the first
tile N ° 12, see Appendix II: “Five-pointed Star” “The Signature” of the Pon-
tificate of Paul VI).

155

«The main object of the Society
(Freemasonry)
is intended to trample
when it has reached sufficient strength,
all Nations and reduce the world
to a Universal Republics

(Francovich: “History of Freemasonry in Italy”
citing a “Masonic document” from 1756)

156

CHAPTER V

HIS “OPENING TO
UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY”

Thus to Paul VI, man is above everything else, which is why you
see in him and in his writings, more zeal to defend the rights and in-
terests of man rather that of God’s. He mixes humanism with Chris-
tianity. Unquestionably, the Christian religion more than any other
is permeated with humanism, moreover She teaches, in the first
place, the love of a God who has given His life for man, but for
man’s eternal salvation.

Paul VI, on the contrary, predicts the advent of a peaceful soci-
ety, thanks to the establishment of a “conscience of humanity”, by
way of natural means; which is a real utopia with a taste of
“heresy”, since man, after the “Original sin”, is more inclined to
evil than to good: egoism, greed, vengeance, hatred, wickedness of
all kinds, hence it can but be anything but utopia. How can this
dream of utopian societies in which all men love one another, re-
spect one another, come to be if you do not first inculcate respect
for the “Rights of God”?.

And that is an elementary and fundamental truth Paul VI contin-
uously chose to ignore, placing always the accent onto “human
rights”, as an echo of the French Revolution of 1789.

A “new Christianity”, therefore, but one unable to generate the
“Charity” the World needs.

157

Now, do the Pope and the Bishops ignore the consequence of
this “cult of Man”? Don’t they know how many and which crimes
have been committed, in the aftermath of that Satanic French Rev-
olution, precisely in the name of “Human Rights”? Have they for-
gotten that it was revolutionary France to put Europe to the sword
and blood, claiming to “liberate”, in this way, “the oppressed peo-
ples”?

Naturally, the “Charter” of “Human Rights” contains also
some worthy things; yet these are not the brainchild of the Revolu-
tion, since they existed already in the Gospel. In any case, those
writings contain a perverse ideology, serving Man as a supreme be-
ing, and excluding any Right of God, and God Himself.

That is why Pius IX said:

«The French Revolution was inspired by Satan
himself. Its goal is the destruction Christianity
from top to bottom» 1 .

However, even the principles of “Liberty-Equality-Fraterni-
ty” are false, not in themselves, but because they are not subordi-
nated to God and to His laws. They could be held as valid only by
alienating oneself from the spirit that has dictated them, from the
spirit that animates them, from the spirit that applies and manifests
them, cunningly confusing the true with the false and the false with
the true.

In fact, the “Declaration” of 1789 claimed that the will of the
“sovereign people” replaced the will of the “SOVEREIGN
GOD”; it claimed that human laws take the place of divine laws;
claimed that “natural rights” be above “supernatural rights”.

In a word: the alleged “Human Rights” were to replace “Jesus
Christ’s Eternal Rights”.

Hence, in conscience, a Catholic must absolutely distance him-
self from these principles of the French Revolution, and cannot ac-
cept the spirit that dictated them, nor their interpretation, nor their
application.

1 Pius IX, September 8, 1849.

158

Paul VI, on the contrary, held a different view. He regarded the
“Charter of Human Rights” as the version of a modern Gospel.
St. Pius X had written:

«... They fear not to draw between the Gospel
and the Revolution blasphemous compar-
isons^.

Paul VI, on the other hand, filled his entire Pontificate with a re-
lentless preaching of “Human Rights”, both of individuals and Na-
tions 2 3 .

«Something new was being perceived - said he -
They were ideas of living, concurrences between
the great principles of the Revolution, which did
nothing but appropriate some Christian con-
cepts: fraternity, equality, progress, desire of el-
evating the underprivileged classes. Hence, all
this is Christian; and yet it had borne, then, an
anti-Christian symbol, secular, anti-religious,
tending to misrepresent this part of the evangel-
ical heritage, aiming at developing human life in
an elevated and noble sense» 4 .

It must be remarked, here, that it is not an “anti-Christian sym-
bol”, but rather an “anti-Christian spirit” that has appropriated the
Christian concepts in order to turn them against God.

Deplorably, the Conciliar Constitution: “The Church in the
Modern World”, reads:

«The Church, by virtue of the Gospel commit-
ted to Her, proclaims the rights of man; She ac-

2 Pius X, “Letter on the Sillon”, n. 41.

3 Marcel de Corte, “Courrier de Rome”, September 25, 1971, n. 86, p. 8.

4 Paul VI, September 1, 1963.

159

knowledges and greatly esteems the dynamic
movements of today by which these rights are
everywhere fostered» 5 .

After that false Conciliar assertion, this other assertion of Paul
Vi’s, at Manila, came as no surprise:

«I feel the obligation of professing, here, more
than anywhere else, “Human Rights”, for you
and for all the poor of the world» 6 .

It would appear that, to Paul VI, to profess the “Gospel” or
“Human Rights” are one and the same thing. And he went on:

«The Church firmly believes that the promo-
tion of “Human Rights” is a requirement of the
Gospel, and that it must occupy a central place
in Her ministry» 7 .

“A requirement of the Gospel”? But where in the Gospel, a
text - at least one! - is ever to be found encouraging the claim of
“human rights”?

But Paul VI goes on:

«In Her desire to convert fully to Her Lord,
and in order to better fulfill Her ministry, the
Church intends to manifest respect and care of
“Human Rights” within Herself» 8 .

How odd! Paul VI affirms that, in order to convert fully “to the
Lord” and that “to better fulfill Her ministry”, the Church must

5 Conciliar Constitution: “The Church in the World of Our Time”, n. 41.

6 Paul VI at Manila, November 29, 1970.

7 D. C. November 17, 1974, n. 1664, p. 965. And again in D. C. of March 7,
1976, n. 1693, p. 223.

8 Paul Vi’s Address with the Father of the Synod, on October 23, 1974.

160

take “care of the Rights of Man”, whereas St. Paul Apostle,
speaking of his apostolic ministry, wrote: «For I determined not to
know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him Cruci-
fied^.

Sure, Paul VI is not St. Paul Apostle, nor did he share with him
a common view. In fact, he continued to identify evangelization
with the defense of Human Rights. He said:

«In light of that which we perceive of our duty
of evangelization, and with the strength of our
duty to proclaim the Good News, we affirm our
own determination to promote “Human
Rights” and the reconciliation in the entire
Church and in the world of today» 10 .

Let us recall, then, what Leo XIII wrote, on December 8, 1892:

«Every familiarity should be avoided (...) with
those who hide under the mask of universal tol-
erance, respect for all religions, and the craving
to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with
those of the Revolution*.

But Paul VI ignored that Voice of the Magisterium, too, and thus
said:

«Peace and Human Rights: such is the thought
with which, we hope, men will commence the
coming year... This message of ours cannot
lack the strength that comes to it from that
Gospel of which we are minister, the Gospel of
Christ. It, too, like the Gospel, is addressed to
everyone in the world» u .

9 I Corinthians 2, 2.

10 D. C. November 17, 1974, n. 1664, p. 966.

11 Paolo VI, “Peace Day”, January 1, 1969.

161

Even on the occasion of the 25 th anniversary of the European
Convention on “Human Rights”, Paul VI said:

«In order to promote peace and carry out a
moral reconstruction, in this post-war Europe,
with her wounds still open, respect of “Human
Rights” is of the utmost importance... » 12 .

Now, no one can doubt that the “human means” be the sole of
real interest to Paul VI. “Of the utmost importance”, for the
“moral reconstruction of Europe”, is not the Gospel, said he, but
“Human Rights”, which are based:

- upon the “cult of a Freedom” (one that does not take at all
into account God and the duties toward Him);

- upon the “myth of Equality” (source of continuous injustices
and violence);

- upon the “dream” of a “universal Fraternity” (gained at the
price of concessions and betrayals, and through mere “human
means”).

It must be noted, again, that the “Charter of Human Rights”
has not only produced conflicts, upheavals, disputes, and wars, since
man, separated from God, shall always dream of claiming his

“rights” rather that his “duties”.

In any case, Paul VI should have known that the sole means to
check such upheavals is to “CHRISTIANIZE THE WORLD”, giv-
ing it Jesus Christ, preaching His Gospel, administering His Sacra-
ments, through which comes to us the indispensable grace of God.

Instead, in Maritain’s “Integral Humanism” we read that
“Universal Democracy”, or the “City of the World”, must be
founded upon “Conscience”, and must be based upon the
“Charter” of “Human Rights”, that is, upon the laws of the
modern city.

“Human Rights” would thus be the transposition, in a modern
key, of the Evangelical Message.

12 Allocution of November 7, 1975.

162

Paul VI affirms it, too:

«This edifice which you are constructing - he
said in his address to the United Nations - does
not rest upon merely material and earthly foun-
dations, for if so, it would be a house built up-
on sand; it rests above all on our own con-
sciences.... Today, as never before, in an era
marked by such human progress, there is need
for an appeal to the moral conscience of man».

But whence is to come the moral strength to sustain “moral
conscience”, if not from Divine Grace?

But Paul VI, in one of his Wednesday “Allocutions” (December
8, 1965), would represent his theory of “conscience”, considered
as moral strength, onto which “religious sentiment” is engaged,
saying:

«It is in the expression of moral conscience that
man frees himself from temptations... It is out
of this moral conscience that the interests cor-
rupting his dignity are overcome, the fears that
render the heart base and inept are van-
quished, the sentiments that generate the wor-
thy, the honest, nay, the strong, are generated.

It is this conscience the great characters of the
human drama, the innocent, the heroes, the
saints, draw their strength from...».

That is not the way a “cleric” is expected to speak, as the
Grace of Christ Redeemer is ignored, without which we can do
nothing. Here, the Sacraments are ignored. Here, prayer is ignored.

But Paul VI, even in his “Message” to the UN of October 4,
1970, would reiterate:

«What does this conscience, then, express with
so much strength? “Human Rights”! The con-
science of humanity grows stronger and
stronger. Men rediscover this inalienable part

163

of themselves which binds them together: the
human in man».

And on he goes:

«Is “The Charter of Human Rights”: not only
to claim for anyone, regardless of race, age, sex,
and religion, respect for human dignity and for
the conditions necessary for its practice, but al-
so to translate, loud and clear, the unanimous
aspiration of hearts and the universal testimo-
ny of consciences?».

As one can see, this new “Humanist Decalogue” contains, to be
sure, some fine words that stir the hearts: truths, justice, dignity, sol-
idarity, equality, brotherhood, etc., but none of them sufficient to
subdue the flesh, the world, the devil.

Paul VI, on the contrary, resumes his “Humanist Decalogue”
even in his “Brief [Pontifical letter] to the United Nations” of Oc-
tober 4, 1965:

«A system apt to cater to public welfare such as
might interest mankind as a whole, cannot sub-
sists other than Yours, founded upon the re-
spect of the rights, just freedom, and dignity of
the person, with the removal of the fatal folly of
war and of the harmful fury of pride».

Words in the wind, these of Paul Vi’s, which shall never yield
the smallest act of virtue, or a renunciation, or a sacrifice, or an
evangelical forgiveness, or any other Christian good.

I would have one read, therefore, what St. Pius X wrote:

«... According to them, man will be a man tru-
ly worthy of the name only when he has ac-
quired a strong, enlightened, and independent
consciousness, able to do without a master,
obeying only himself, and able to assume the
most demanding responsibilities without falter-

164

ing. Such are the big words by which human
pride is exalted» 13 .

But neither Christ, nor the Grace of the Sacraments, nor the Law
of the Gospel dwell in Paul Vi’s mind, committed, as he was by
now, on the naturalist level. In fact, at Bombay, on December 3,
1964, he would stress once again that:

«The human race is undergoing profound
changes and is groping for the guiding princi-
ples and the new forces that will lead it into the
world of the future».

But what kind of a “Vicar of Christ” has this Paul VI been?

«We must - said he - become closer to one an-
other not only through press and radio and
ships and jet-planes, but we must become clos-
er through our hearts, through our mutual un-
derstanding, esteem, and love».

In short, everything is based on man! “Religion”, with him, had no
longer a place. It is the “cult of man” that must breed the love of man.

It is Freemason-talk all along, just as on September 1, 1963, as
we reported above; words that suit perfectly that association with
the ideas of the Masonic French Revolution. But that’s not how
things stand! The “principles” of 1789 are not at all the princi-
ples of the Gospel! Only by respecting the “Rights of God” shall
man have respect for the “Rights of man”, too, for only by making
of Charity, Christian renunciation, and self-oblivion one’s own
life, shall man be able to put into practice the Law of Christ: “BUT
SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HIS RIGHT-
EOUSNESS; AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED
UNTO YOU 14 .

13 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 25.

14 Matthew 6, 33.

165

Perhaps, that evangelical text never occurred to Paul VI, in
which Christ says clearly, “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God
and His righteousness”, that is, the life of Grace and Sanctity, in
order to gain access to the Beatitude of the Glory of Heaven, and
that, therefore, no progress is at all possible, not even of a human
and temporal nature, but insofar as man sought first the “Kingdom
of God”.

Hence all of Paul Vi’s words, were but a “chimera” of a “New
World”, of a Paradise on earth, possible through the exclusive
forces of man.

On July 19, 1971, in fact, he said:

«Something great and new is in the works and
it is coming about, which might change the face
of the earth».

These are words of a hazy and whimsical Messianism, which
had caused him to utter, at the UN, those other ludicrous and fanci-
ful remarks:

«Citizens of the world, as you salute the dawn
of this new year, 1970, take a moment to think:
whither is mankind’s path leading? Today we
can take an overall view, a prophetic view.
Mankind is traveling forward, that is, progress-
ing toward an ever-greater mastery of the
world... And how does this mastery help
mankind? It helps it to live a better and fuller
life. Mankind seeks fullness of life and obtains
it... It strives for that unity, justice, balance
and perfection, which we call Peace...

Peace is the logical aim of the present world; it
is the destiny of progress; it is the ultimate or-
der the great strivings of civilization are head-
ed for... We proclaim Peace as the dominant
idea in the conscious life of man, who wants to
see the prospect of his immediate and more dis-
tant journey. Once more we proclaim Peace, for
Peace is, at one and the same time, under dif-

166

ferent aspects, both the beginning and the end
of the development of society* 15 .

The ludicrous and hallucinating utterances of a false prophet!
The Word of God, besides, clearly refutes his assertions. “Non est
pax impiis” 16 . Only Christ can give “peace”, but not in the same
manner as worldly peace.

It is appropriate to report once more what St. Pius X wrote in

his “Letter on the Sillon”:

«No, Venerable Brethren... The city of the
world shall not be built otherwise than as God
has built it; society shall not be setup unless the
Church lays the foundations and supervises the
work; no, civilization is not something yet to be
found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy
notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is
Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It
has only to be set up and restored continually
against the unremitting attacks of insane
dreamers, rebels and miscreants. OMNIA IN-
STAURARE IN CHRISTO* 17 .

“Peace”, therefore, can neither be a fruit of man’s civilization,
nor can it be of the United Nations.

And the same must be said of “Justice”. And yet Paul VI, even
here, on October 4, 1965, had this to say to the Conciliar Fathers:

«We all, convinced that peace has to be found-
ed upon justice, shall become the advocates of
justice. Christ wants us to be hungry and
thirsty».

15 Peace Day Messagge, 1970.

16 Isaiah 48, 22 - 57, 21.

17 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 11.

167

In reality, however, Jesus spoke of another “justice”, that of
man toward God, “Sanctity”, that is, whereas social justice can be
but a consequence of the other.

But Paul Vi’s mind is that of a revolutionary Messianism: to
subordinate the prospect of peace to the establishment of justice.
And that he wrote in his “Populorum Progressio” of March 26,
1967, in which his analysis has a flavor of Marxism, since the word
“Justice” pairs up with the word “Equality”; namely: the rich di-
vide their resources with the deprived, or there would be war (as if
it were not just the opposite, since the rich and strong always cause
wars just to push the poor in deeper and deeper into poverty and
therefore powerless).

However, the “Populorum Progressio” as it is written, excited
the resentments of the Third World populations, offering them “de-
velopment” as an objective (but through their own efforts), as a re-
sult, pressured the rich to share their goods. “Development”, that is,
is tantamount to “Peace”. Precisely the program, in fact, of Com-
munism.

And that is why Paul VI, at Bogota, at Manila, in Australia,

stirred the poor against the rich, indigenous peoples against West-
erners; a dialectical masquerade of “class struggle”, softened with
the recommendation of an evangelical solution, which repudiates
violence and calls for love:

«That in the past, the Church and the Popes
themselves, in other very different circum-
stances, resorted to arms and temporal power,
even for good causes and with the best of inten-
tions, we are not here to judge, now; to us it is
no longer the time to turn to the sword and to
force, even when these were to be sustained by
aims of justice and progress; and we are confi-
dent that all good Catholics and all sound and
modern public opinion share our view. We are
convinced, rather, that the time is ripe for
Christian love among men; love must operate,
love must change the face of the earth; love
must bring justice, progress, brotherhood and
peace into the world».

168

A way of speaking which is also “Utopia”, perhaps the most un-
realizable in a world without God, in a civilization of sin. Hence
Paul Vi’s reckoning is, indirectly, an authentic justification of vio-
lence; a not so veiled authorization to “revolutionary insurrec-
tion”, which would be

«The case of longstanding tyranny which would
cause great damage to fundamental human
rights and harm to the common good of the
country... » 18 .

In conclusion, Paul Vi’s program was:

«To reduce iniquities, eliminate discrimination,
free men from the bonds of servitude, and thus
give them the capacity, in the sphere of tempo-
ral realities, to improve their lot, to further
their moral growth and to develop their spiri-
tual endowments^ 11 .

It is a program, however, of Masonic philanthropy, of integral
Socialism, to be realized through force. St. Pius X would say, as he
did of the Sillon: «Socialism will be ushered in, with its eyes fixed
on a chimera» 20 .

Now, that is not the “design of God”, but diverting of the eyes
of the Faithful from Heaven in order to turn them into “slaves of the
World”, as it is read in the Apocalypse.

Paul Vi’s “Populorum Progressio”, therefore, save for the idyl-
lic calls to love, in order to reach it, calls for the fusion of religions,
the heaping up of them into a chaotic confusion.

In fact, what place would occupy religion in that planned “city
of man”? In other words, what place would be due to religion in
that new humanism proclaiming continuously that man is sufficient

18 Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio”, n. 31.

19 Ibid. n. 34.

20 Pius X “Letter on the Sillon”, of August 25, 1910, n. 38.

169

unto himself, hence he can do without transcendence, revelation, su-
pernatural redemption, dogma, worship, singular Church? But was
it not, on the contrary, exactly this that all of the popes prior to Paul
VI condemned? He, on the contrary, at Sidney, on December 13,
1970, will say:

«Isolation is no longer an option. The hour has
come for the great fellowship of men with each
other, and for the setting up of a United and
Fraternal World Community» and «The work
of peace is not limited to one religious faith; it
is the work and duty of every man, regardless
of his religious convictions. Men are brothers,

God is their Father and their Father wants
them to live in peace with on one anothers» 21 .

But then it is God calling for tolerance, indifference, liberalism,
and respect of every religion! If that is the case, God would also
want His own discredit, willing that «a human community be built
where men can live truly human lives, free from discrimination
on account of race, religion or nationality...» 22 , hence «any dis-
crimination, be it of an ethical, cultural, religious or political na-
ture, is unjustified and inadmissible* 23 .

But that would lead to the conclusion that if religion serves no
purpose in this new world society, then neither would God.

And that is the Masonic thought, as well as Maritain’s: inte-
gral Humanism can but find its ideological foundations in a pro-
fane tradition of the Gospel... ».

But Paul VI, too, in his address of January 30, 1965, would say:

«The Church cannot turn a blind eye onto the
ideological, moral and spiritual animation of
public life... Work with faith, yes, with confi-

21 To the religious organizations of the UN, on October 14, 1965.

22 Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio”, n. 47.

23 Oct. Adv. 23 and 16.

170

dence toward the systems that form the norm
and history of our society, and which today are
the democratic ones».

And in his address of September 14, 1965:

«We feel responsible. We are indebted to every-
one. The Church, in this world, is not an aim in
itself; She is at the service of mankind; She
must make Christ present to all, individuals
and peoples».

But what “presence of Christ”? That of the lackey?

«To serve mankind, of every condition, in every
weakness and need. The Church has, so to say,
proclaimed Herself the servant of humanity» 24 .

And he adds:

«While other currents of thought and action
propose to build the city of man, different prin-
ciples such as power, wealth, science, struggle,
interest, etcetera, the Church, the Church
alone, proclaims love» 25 .

Paul VI, therefore, wanted to fortify that “new city”, ideal and
secular, with that “supplement of faith and love” which the UN re-
quires. But that means that, by osmosis, they will change into one,
in man and in love for the world. And that in order to ensure the
success of the project of the man who makes himself God. Hence
“The religion of the God who became man”, should thus place itself
at the service of the “the religion of man who makes himself God”!

24 Address of December 7, 1965.

25 Address of December 14, 1965.

171

How could this Pope, who even at Bethlehem, on January 16,
1964, had said: «We must ensure to the life of the Church a new
way of feeling, of willing, of behaving», go on to speak and act as
he pleased?

And who on August 12, had said:

«Religion must be renovated. That is the per-
suasion of all those who, today, are still (sic)
dealing with religion, whether they be outside
of its concrete expression: a faith, an obser-
vance, a community, or be within a religious
profession or discussion. It all depends on what
one intends for renovation».

It is a speech that might have hinted to a lost faith even on his
part, his belonging amongst “those who are still dealing with reli-
gion” notwithstanding, so that all religions could fraternize in the
temporal action, brushing aside dogmatic conflicts, since “religious
struggles are forever gone” 26 , since it is no longer the case to in-
terest the souls in “supreme things” 27 , but to put them at the ser-
vice of humanity.

And that is Paul Vi’s Ecumenism! Confusion, that is, all reli-
gions into converging expressions of the same “spiritual and
moral values” offered to the “men of goodwill” on Earth.

And all that Masonic ecumenism, unfortunately, was the canvas
of his journey to the East, where he even made of Buddhism a re-
ligion. But it was the “purpose” of his journey, that arousing

«Fruits of a closer understanding between com-
munities of every origin and every religious
confession in this part of the world; we do

26 I.C.I., February 15, 1965.

27 Address of December 7, 1965.

172

hope, moreover, that (our journey) would foster
a concurrent action toward progress, justice,
and peace» 28 .

And at Ceylon, on December 4, 1970:

«Regardless of caste, FAITH, color and lan-
guage^

Coexistence and collaboration, that is, between all religions.
Paul VI would repeat it in his Address at the Angelus of August 9,
1970:

«The conflict engages three ethnic- religious ex-
pressions, which recognize one sole true God:
the Hebrew people, the Islamic people, and,
with these and spread worldwide, the Christian
people, that is, monotheism, identical monothe-
ism, in its three most authentic, most ancient,
most historical, most convinced voices. Would it
not be possible that from the name of the very
same God, instead of irreducible oppositions,
sprang forth a sentiment of mutual respect, of
possible agreement, of peaceful cohabitation?
Could not the reference to the same God, to the
same Father, without the prejudice of theologi-
cal dispute, one day lead to the discovery, so
difficult and indispensable, that we are all
brothers? (...). Dreadful and at one time dis-
heartening are the boldness and lightness of
spirit of men who declare themselves Catholics,
who dream of establishing on the earth, outside
of the Catholic Church, “the kingdom of justice
and love”, with workers from everywhere, of

28 Address at Teheran, on November 26, 1970.

173

every religion and without religion, with or
without faith, so long as they forget what di-
vides them; their religious and philosophical
convictions, and so long as they share what
unites them: a generous idealism and moral
forces, gathered “wherever is possible”».

Bewildering indeed! The result of that promiscuity in work, the
beneficiary of that cosmopolitan social action, can be but a “democ-
racy” which would be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish:
a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, including all
men, becoming, at last, brothers and comrades in the “Kingdom of
God” (in the “kingdom of justice and love”?).

Paul VI, here, gave the halt to working for the true “Kingdom
of God”, in order to work, instead, for humanity.

And that was also his appeal to the “Red Guards” of the [Chi-
nese] Cultural Revolution, as was his letter to Cardinal Roy:

«The Church invites every Christian to a dou-
ble task of animation and renovation in order
to evolve Her structures and adapt them to the
requirements of our times... The Spirit of the
Lord, animating man renewed in Christ, shakes
the horizons in which his [man’s] intelligence is
keen on finding his self-assurance and the lim-
its in which his action would be circumscribed;
he is seized by a force that pushes him to fly
past every system and every ideology» 29 .

Religion seems condemned in favor of a chimerical Constitution
of a “New World”, in which dogmas become obstacles to univer-
sal understanding and hurdles to brotherhood; in which the Sacra-
ments no longer serve any purpose, as men are all equal even with-
out drawing from them, in which even the Commandments of God
are rejected as unbearable constraints.

29 Oct. Adv. 50 and 37.

174

In conclusion, with that “Project-Utopia” of Paul Vi’s, the In-
stitution of the Church would crumble to the ground, for the reason
that, separated from Her way of thinking, educating, and living, She
would prevent the Christians from integrating into the world, into
the secular community. Integral Humanism advocated by Paul VI
would come to definitively suffocate Religion, and become atheist
“Humanism”. And while Pius X was canonized for the purity of
his doctrine and for his fortitude in defending the Catholic Faith, to-
day they would be willing to bring to the altar a Paul VI whom, with
his “Political Utopia”, already expressly condemned by his Prede-
cessors, attempted to corrupt the Faith of the Church of Christ.

175

In the nineteenth century the controversy exploded around the “liberal Catholicism” that
Lamennais and Ketteler, even if on two different levels, had advocated. Marx and Engels
called this “pseudo-socialism” Catholics “holy water with which the priest blesses the
anger of the aristocrats”. The two cartoons (top and bottom) illustrate the two opposing
ideological positions.

Paul VI, at the UN, talking to the representatives of 117 countries. From the TV, Millions of
people understood his “Message”. It was a unique opportunity to preach Jesus Christ to the
world, but Pope Paul VI, however, preached “faith in man”!

THE MASONIC “UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY”

- «To carry out a revolution, the democratic alternative is the most
desirable and most permanent method; a purely totalitarian
method,- in the long run, self destructives

(Julian Huxley, “Time of Revolution”, Mondadori, 1949, p. 16).

- «The world is ruled by quite different characters than one could
not even imagine, whose eyes can not see behind the scenes».

(Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister).

- «Member States (...) are no longer arbiters of their own destiny.
Powers that elude us are engaging in (...) countries of special inter-
ests and aberrant idealisms

(Sir Stanley Baldwin, British minister).

177

«The error that you do not oppose;
you support».

(Pope Felix III)

178

CHAPTER VI

HIS “TOLERANCE AND COMPLICITY”

No one can deny, today, that the famous “revision” of Vatican II
had been an authentic “betrayal”. It is no use attempting to explain
and justify this state of things. After trying, for many years, to pre-
tend that all is well, and that all the Church was suffering from was
a healthy “crisis of growth”, and, in the end, all would conclude in
a beautiful blossoming [in the Church], it has now been recognized
as an insupportable thesis. However they would have one believe
that all of the current “evil” can neither be attributed to the Pope nor
to Vatican II, but only to the disobedience of the [Catholic] faithful
not willing to adapt to what the Council would have wanted.

Certainly, one cannot lay all the blame for such a disaster upon
Paul VI alone, even though he, himself, spoke of “self-destruc-
tion” afoot in the Church; in any case, he surely deserves the “li-
on’s share” in the current decline of the Church.

Therefore, to only accuse the Pope and the Council of disobedi-
ence after this visible subverting of doctrine, morals, and ecclesiol-
ogy, with the unhealthy “revisions” that led to an evident destruc-
tion of the traditional values of the Church of Tradition, would be a
sign of intellectual shortsightedness or dishonesty. The “facts” and
the “texts” are still there for all to see. They are therefore the prod-
ucts of the Hierarchy of the Church. Undeniably! With the wiping

179

out of the Holy Office, and its restrictions, which had raised dams
of protection against the waves of error and evil, for the protection
of souls, permission was granted for the invasion and submersion of
the Church into the tidal waves of error and immorality.

Now, how could Paul VI call for or accept decisions so lacking
even in common sense? Regrettably, to his own eyes, “human dig-
nity” required that all that might resemble offense to man’s “free-
dom” be suppressed, as if today’s man no longer carried “original
sin” and, therefore, no longer carried any inclination to sin, as if
man were endowed with a perfect judgment and a universal knowl-
edge of all.

How Paul VI, who let every heresy go free without ever inter-
vening against the theoreticians or the propagators, could support
the Catholic Faith, it is impossible to comprehend. Sure, Paul VI
undersigned the encyclicals “Misterium Fidei” (September 3,
1965), “Sacerdotalis Coelibatus” (June 24, 1967), “Humanae Vi-
tae” (July 25, 1968), which are a faithful echo of the Catholic Tra-
dition; as he also had to suffer for the systematic criticism that came
about, from some of his Acts of Magisterium, on the part of many
priests and whole Episcopates. In any case, his affirming the
“Truth” without ever condemning the errors remains incompre-
hensible.

We can similarly express our wonderment for his traditional doc-
trine in his Wednesday “Allocutions” (save for some exceptions),
while he even allowed to be taught an avalanche of crazy theories
along with dogmatic and moral nonsense in the churches. It was,
therefore, an inexplicable tolerance, allowing so many errors that
Paul VI seemed to reject to spread, at all levels. He allowed them
to flourish about him all of the time, though these same teachings
poisoned souls.

In so acting, his negligence was similar to that which earned
Pope Honorius the condemnation of the anathema. Nay, Paul VI
went further, he went as far as favoring the advocates of errors and
novelties harmful to the doctrine of our Faith. In fact, he even de-
fended them and praised them, and many of them he summoned to
high offices, as if he banded together with them in the common
cause of a “Conciliar Reform” toward the creation of a “New
Church”.

Negligent, inert, and complicit... and friends of Atheists and

180

Communists, all of this on account of a yearning for “dialogue”
that allowed him to create peace with the Protestants, avoiding to re-
call the “ancient condemnations” and to repress, with “new con-
demnations”, the protestantization that was afoot in the Church.

Thus he started and carried forward the demolition of any pro-
tection defending the Church against “errors”. In fact:

On December 7, 1965, he suppressed the Congregation of the
Holy Office, and not only changed its name into “Congregation
for the Doctrine of Faith”, but also changed, what is most impor-
tant, its regulations 1 , so that errors could no longer be condemned
in the way it was done before.

«Perfect love wipes away fears... The progress
of human culture, whose import for religion
must not be neglected, requires that the faithful
follow more fully and with additional love the
directives, if they can well discern the raison
d’etre of the definitions and of the laws...».

It is a text suggesting, to be sure, to the faithful, to follow the di-
rectives of the Church, but only “if they can well discern the rai-
son d’etre of the definitions and of the laws”, or else... they
would not be bound to obey when those definitions and laws did
not concur with their own judgments. A text, all in all, which in-
troduced, even in the Catholic Church, the “free thought” of
Protestantism.

Then, as a logical consequence of that change of the Holy Of-
fice, Paul VI proceeded to suppress the Index, namely, the cata-
logue of the books the Holy See prohibited the faithful to read, since
She considered them bad or harmful to their Faith.

«The main reason that has urged the Congre-
gation for the Doctrine of Faith (to cut short the
reprinting of the Index) - said Cardinal Ottaviani

1 Motu proprio “Integrae Servandae”.

181

- is that it no longer responds to the needs... In
the “Declaration On Religious Freedom”, in
the “Decree On the Apostolate of The Laity”
and in the Constitutions on “The Church in the
Modern World”, the Council has bestowed to
the laity a greater maturity and higher respon-
sibilities in the Church, the Mystical Body of
Christ» 2 .

An odd act, to say the least, as it seems as if Paul VI had the
power to bestow upon the faithful a spiritual and intellectual “ma-
turity” capable of replacing the Magisterium of the Church.

For this reason, Cardinal Ottaviani had to explain that

«In the climate of the Council, the Church will
formulate some authorized indications, some
alerts, some advises, some warnings, rather
than condemnations... » 3 .

However, it seemed to say that the diffusion of bad books, of
false and erroneous doctrines, would no longer have anything to do
with the Magisterium. In that way, by abolishing the Index and its
sanctions, Paul VI favored the spreading of error, turning himself
into a downright accomplice.

«The Index no longer carries the force of eccle-
siastical law with the censures associated with
it. The Church has confidence in the mature
conscience of the faithful (!!)» 4 .

Ingenuousness! Here, instead, is the result of that ecclesial

2 Statement published on “L’Osservatore della Domenica” of April 24, 1996.

3 Idem.

4 “Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”, in “L’Osser-
vatore Romano” of June 15, 1966.

182

“thoughtlessness”: today, one reads anything, completely
unchecked. And the moral decline, the confusion of religious ideas,
before so many different religions and theories, is before everyone’s
eyes. And then, where is the vigilance (It is beyhond incompe-
tence!) of many Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences,
which still have the duty of standing watch?

And how to explain that, months after the abolition of the Index,
two articles of the “Canon Law” were also abolished, dealing with
the condemnation of bad books and with the imposition of sanctions
upon their authors? In fact, on November 15, 1966, it was again
Paul VI who declared abrogated Canon 1399 on the prohibition
of books, and Canon 2318 on ecclesiastical censures, imposed
upon the authors and apologists of immoral books and upon the
supporters of false doctrines.

And he did it through a Decree, which reads:

«Those who, possibly, were bound by censures,
as provided for in Canon 2318, containing pun-
ishments against those in violation of the laws
on the censures and interdiction of books, are
absolved by effect of the abrogation of the said
Canon» 5 .

Hence, even the authors whom, in the past, had been condemned
by the Holy Office for their scandalous or heretical works, today,
with the “New Church” of Paul VI, are “absolved”, without ask-
ing of them neither repentance nor a retraction of their errors.

This leads one to conclude that, to Paul VI, that which under his
Predecessors was considered “erroneous” or “hazardous” for the
Christian souls, under his Pontificate was no longer such. There-
fore, by absolving the heretical or immoral authors and non-convert
distributors of bad books, Paul VI signed the approval of the er-
ror and granted it citizenship rights in the Church.

5 Decree of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”, of November 15,
1996; “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”, December 29, 1966, vol. 58, n. 16.

183

Another “green light” of Paul Vi’s was that of the abolition of
the “anti-Modernist Oath” that St. Pius X had ordered the clergy
to take in order to preclude them from the doctrinal errors of Mod-
ernism. Besides, he had also prescribed a “Profession of Faith”, of
the Council of Trent, already prescribed by Pius IV.

Now, Paul VI abrogated these two provisions of Pius X’s as
well, and replaced them with a brief accommodating and flexible
formula. To Paul VI, that “anti-Modernist Oath” must have been-
acting against the “freedom” of the clergy, as it kept the clergy
from thinking and believing differently, and that was against Vatican
II. In fact, Vatican II had decreed that:

«Each one, within the Church... will retain the
freedom one deems worthy... even with respect
to the theological elaboration of the revealed
truth» 6 . (?!)

Bewildering indeed!

But Paul VI, too, had wanted Vatican II to be only “pastoral”,
hence he removed the “solemn pastoral formulas that are called
dogmatic” from it 7 . And that, no doubt, was so as not to upset a
modern man no longer fond of the role of “pupil”, and not to upset
the sensibility of the “separated brothers”. In fact, in the same
opening address, Paul VI said:

«To our Faith, which we hold as divine, we owe
the frankest and firmest adhesion. But we are
convinced that She is not an obstacle to the de-
sired understanding between our separated
Brothers and us, precisely because She is truth
of the Lord and She is, therefore, a principle of

6 Conciliar “Decree” on Ecumenism: “Unitatis Redin tegratio”, November 21,
1964, n. 4.

7 Opening address, II Session, September 29, 1963 - Conciliar Documents, n.
6 p. 109..

184

unity and not of divergence or separation. In
any case, we do not wish to make of our faith a
motive of polemic with them» 8 . (?!)

Now, how could Paul VI say that integral Christian Faith could
not be an obstacle to those who accept it fully, whereas it would be
so to those who accept it only in part? Has Our Lord not said, per-
haps:

«For from henceforth there shall be five in one
house divided, three against two, and two
against three. The father shall be divided
against the son, and the son against the father;
the mother against the daughter, and the
daughter against the mother; the mother in law
against her daughter in law, and the daughter
in law against her mother in law” 9 .

So, only the “Truth” of the Lord is the principle of unity, and

that only among those who accept it. And yet Paul VI, so as not to

create “a reason for controversy”, abstained from his teaching
authority, even though it was his very serious duty.

But he had already written it in his first Encyclical, “Ecclesiam
Suam”:

«... Nor do we propose to make this encyclical
a solemn proclamation of Catholic doctrine or
of moral or social principles. Our purpose is
merely to send you a sincere message, as be-
tween brothers and members of a common
family» 10 .

8 As above, p. 117.

9 Luke 12, 52 and 53.

10 “Ecclesiam Suam”, n. 7.

185

But what value could an encyclical have, then, that did not con-
tain “specific teachings”? Not a serious affair! However, given the
content of that encyclical, one can rejoice today that it did not have

“a solemn and peculiarly doctrinal character”, but a merely “col-
loquial” one.

«The Church must enter into dialogue with the
world in which it lives (?!) - It reads - We are
fully aware that it is the intention of the Coun-
cil to consider and investigate this special and
important aspect of the Church’s life» n .

Words that sound as a departure to the “command” of Jesus
Christ, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” 12 , and to His im-
perative, “docete”. Paul VI has thus cancelled the “docete” and
turned it into a “dialogue”, that is, a mere “listening” exercise.

Hardly an act of “courage”, I should say, that canceling from
the Gospel Christ’s imperative “docete”, an act I would rather de-
fine as an authentic betrayal of the Faith.

Incredible, but true! Neither the supreme Hierarchy, nor the
scholars of theology have ever stressed that inversion (forced upon,
besides) between “docete” and “discuss”. Neither did I hear a con-
demnation, with regard to Paul Vi’s “Credo”, of what he had writ-
ten in his introduction, in which he sets out with the following
quaint (Modernistically clear, though) “fine-tuning”:

«We are about to make a profession of faith,
and we are about to repeat the formula that be-
gins with the word “Credo”, which, without be-
ing a dogmatic definition in the strict sense of
the word...» 13 .

11 N. 67-68.

12 Matthew 28, 19.

13 Paul Vi’s “Profession of Faith”, June 30, 1968.

186

Astonishing! But “why”? Perhaps out of respect for individual
“freedom of thought”? But then, what was stirring in Paul Vi’s
mind that urged him to point out that even the articles of faith,
enumerated in the “Creed” are not a dogmatic definition?

But even with his appeal (of October 11, 1962), in “Misterium
Fidei”, he wanted a new language with new formulas to be sought
out, in order to render the Catholic Faith more accessible and cred-
ible to modern man. A feat he himself was never able to accomplish.

In any case, with the excuse of a “revision”, even doctrinal,
he opened up the doors to all kinds of heresies, granting the great-
est freedom and real immunity to Christians, as well as complete au-
tonomy to scholars and theologians 14 . It was then that he abrogated
all of the instruments and institutions to control doctrine. And that
marked the end of Authority. It was end of the Norm; Licen-
ciousness now ruled.

But it was also in this manner that Paul VI became united with the
heretics, having become an accomplice and Protector for them, for the
reason that he imposed this “new direction” in his “new Church”,
with a Magisterium wrongfully proposed as “Ordinary”.

In June of 1969, he had already announced:

«We are headed toward a period of greater
freedom in the life of the Church, and, conse-
quently, for each of Her children. This freedom
shall mean less legal obligations and less inner
inhibitions. Formal discipline shall be softened,
every arbitrariness abolished... Every intoler-
ance and every absolutism shall similarly be
abolished» 15 .

Lamentably, Paul VI put that anarchical form directly into
practice; only that, instead of “abolishing every arbitrariness of
it”, he turned it into a norm.

14 Address at St. Thomas University, Manila.

15 “General Audience” of June 9, 1969.

187

Having made it his duty to become the Pope of the “apertura”
[opening], of the “universal welcome”, he kept at it, indeed, with-
out delay, but only with the representatives of “error” and “vice”,
as, for example, with the Communist leaders, fierce persecutors,
soiled with the blood of the Christian Martyrs, offering them the
warmest hospitality, even though, as soon as the visit was over, they
would resume the torturing and slaughtering of the faithful children
of the Church.

The simpletons had seen, in those gestures of Paul Vi’s, a lumi-
nous sign of charity, whereas, on the contrary, we dispute it pre-
cisely on the very level of that very virtue. We say: Why did Paul
VI use that “opening” and such tolerance with those who were dis-
tant from the Church, while he always made an exception when it
came to the “Traditionalists”? Was the Traditional Faith such an
awful “crime”, in his eyes, that he denied them even a brief “vis-
it”, while to the representatives of every religion, actresses,
sportsmen, revolutionaries... he granted every possibility of en-
counter and conference with him?

For example:

On June 29, 1970, several hundred Catholic Traditionalists trav-
eled to Rome, from all parts of the world, in a pilgrimage, request-
ing also an “audience” with the Pope. They waited for hours and
hours, in prayer, at St. Peter’s square. To no avail! The audience
was not granted, nay, it was “denied”. In the same week, howev-
er, Paul VI received, with open arms, the revolutionary leader of the
anti-Portuguese rebellion. Even the press reacted. The “Osservatore
Romano” (July 4, 1970) tried to explain that Paul Vi’s gesture
should not be regarded as wrong, for “the Pope, - wrote the Vati-
can newspaper - as his mission demands, receives all those re-
questing the comfort of a blessing”.

As one can see, it was a declaration of hypocrisy, which bor-
dered on ridicule. The Pope received everybody? And the Tradi-
tionalists?

Another case: on May 30, 1971, another pilgrimage to Rome of
“Traditionalists” from all over the world. Another entreaty to ob-
tain an audience. Another stark refusal. And yet, at that same time,
Paul VI received, in special audience, two soccer teams, and, to
follow, the American Jewish Masonic Association of the “B’nai
B’rith”.

188

Paul VI himself apologized; saying that he received the former,
as he was much into sports himself, “soccer, in particular, even
when it ends up in a brawl”. And that he was also interested in the
French-Masonic Association of the B’nai-B’rith, since it had
toiled much, during the Council, to ensure the triumph of the thesis
of the Jewish Jules Isaac, whom, however, had dared to affirm,
“Your Evangelists are downright liars!” and again, “Your Fa-
thers of the Church are forgers, are iniquitous” 16 .

“Facts” and “remarks” that call for contemplation.

One more example: In June of 1973, while he again refused to
receive the representatives of 4,000 Catholic Traditionalists, from
all over the world, Paul VI received, in special audience, a group of
Talmudic Rabbis and the Patriarch of Buddhist Monks.

And so forth and so on. Freemasons, Communists, enemies of
the Church, were all and always received by Paul VI, with open
arms, while he always kept the Traditionalists, implacably, at the
door.

And while Paul VI received Bishops and priests who supported
Communism, who gave their blessing to immoral books, or [works]
erroneous in the Faith, because he was respectful of their “free-
doms”, with Cardinal Mindszenty, martyr of Communist folly and
criminality, he sacrificed him onto the altar of his unspeakable
“Ostpolitik”, to the point of reducing him to the status of a “sus-
pended a divinis”!

It is thus clear that Paul VI always had double standards. To
achieve his “dream” of a great universal tolerance, he intended to
eliminate all the “intolerant”, that is, all those who were not pre-
pared to compromise with error or to sugar coat their Faith so as not
to upset the enemies of Christ and of His Gospel.

But that was and still is the ideal and “plan” of Freemasonry,
too: to eliminate, that is, all that “divides”, such as the dogmas,
mainstay of a sole “truth”, the holy intransigence that gave the
Church millions of Martyrs”. And it was for that very same “plan”
Paul VI continued to fight, arrogant and blind, in order to achieve
his illusory “Utopia” of a “Universal Humanism”.

16 “Journal L’Aurore” of June 3, 1971.

189

And the “evidence” of his Utopia is indeed in all the “facts”
that have taken place during his Pontificate: on the one hand, the
friendship with dissidents, heretics, rebels, atheists and the
mundane, and opening to all religions; on the other, his constant
hostility and inflexibility with the defenders of the Catholic
Faith.

An opening, his opening, characteristic of a “Masonic Ecu-
menism”, one that calls to mind his true masters: Lamennais, with
his “Messianism”; Saugnier, with his “Christian Democracy”;
Jacques Maritain, with his “Integral Humanism”.

That is to say:

- Humanity, in lieu of the Church and Christianity;

- The “Charter of Man’s Rights” as a “New Gospel”, with its
trilogy: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

- World Democracy, or an earthly version of the “Kingdom of
God”, and a “Religion” inclusive of every denomination, and as
inspirer of a renewed Humanity.

Hence: Humanity in lieu of the Church!

But Pope Leo XIII, on the contrary, in his encyclical “Hu-
manum Genus” (April 20, 1884) had written:

«The race of man (...) is separated into two di-
verse and opposite parts, of which the one
steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the
other of those things which are contrary to
virtue and to truth. The one is (...) the true
Church of Jesus Christ (...) The other is the
kingdom of Satan».

But Paul VI had ignored that ever since his “Ecclesiam Suam”,
in which in practice he rejected the dominion of the Church upon
the temporal society (“Christianity”), to recognize only a “profane
World” as a universal social body, autonomous, external to the
Church.

It is for this reason that, in his encyclical, Paul VI omitted the
two “passages” of St. Paul to the Corinthians:

“And what concord hath Christ with Belial?

And what agreement hath the temple of God
with idols?” 17 .

190

And on that line of his, Paul VI, at Bombay, on Dec. 3, 1964, said:

«Man must meet man, nation meet nation, as
brothers and sisters, as children of God. In this
mutual understanding and friendship, in this
sacred communion (sic), we must also begin to
work together to build the common future of
the human race... Such a union cannot be built
on a universal terror or fear of mutual destruc-
tion; it must be built on the common love that
embraces all and has its roots in God, who is
love».

It was his “new Humanistic Creed”. He would reiterate it in
his “Address” to the FAO, on November 6, 1970:

«Man turns to man as he recognizes him as his
own brother, as the son of the same Father».

And since all men, deep down, are good, he, Paul VI, “expert
in humanism” 18 , again said:

«Yes, peace is possible, for men, deep down, are
good, they lean toward reason, toward order
and common good; peace is possible for in the
heart of the new men, of the young, of those
who understand the march of civilization.. .» 19 .
«Democracy, which human communal living
today appeals to, must open up to a universal
idea that transcends the limits and the hurdles
to an effective brotherhood* 20 .

17 II Corinthians 6, 14-16.

18 1 st Peace Day Address.

19 Address to the UN of October 4, 1965.

191

And in one of his addresses, on January 1, 1970, he would repeat:

«You, the people, have the right to be heard.

But you have the sacred and legitimate right to
demand of your leaders that they run the body
politic in a manner that would cause you no
sufferings... Well, then, we are the democracy
(!!) ... This means that people are in charge,
that power comes from the number (?!), from
the people, such as it is. If we are conscious of
such a social progress that is spreading every-
where, we must give democracy this voice, this
password: the people do not want the war. The
masses must impose the principle that there
must be no more wars in the world».

Thus God must no longer punish “sins”.

Thus even if the word of God is the “Non est pax impiis” 21 , it
must no longer carry any significance.

Thus the supernatural virtues, the Grace of the Sacraments, the
obedience to God’s Commandments no longer carry a weight in so-
ciety, over this fancied “Universal Democracy” which ignores not
only “original sin”, but commits countless sins at all times, con-
tinuously arousing the “punishments of God”.

And yet Paul VI, though “Vicar of Christ”, has substituted the
UN - that Masonic Tower of Babel- as supreme hope for humanity.

That, he had recognized, already, and uttered, on October 4,
1969, at Manhattan, at the very heart of the UN:

«The peoples of the earth turn to the United
Nations as the last hope of concord and peace.

We presume to present here, together with our
own, their tribute to honor and of hope. You ex-
ist and operate to unite the Nations, to connect

20 Christmas Message, 1964.

21 Isaiah 48, 22-57, 21.

192

the States; let us use this second formula: to put
together the ones with the others. You are an
Association. You are a bridge between peo-
ples... We would be tempted to say that your
chief characteristic is a reflection, as it were, in
the temporal field of what our Catholic Church
aspires to be in the spiritual field: unique and
universal. Among the ideals by which mankind
is guided, one can conceive of nothing greater
on the natural level... In this way a system of
solidarity is established, so that lofty civilized
aims may win the orderly and unanimous sup-
port of all the family of peoples for the common
good and for the good of each individual.

This is the finest aspect of the United Nations;
it is its most truly human aspect; it is the ideal
that mankind dreams of on its pilgrimage
through time; it is the world’s greatest hope; it
is, we presume to say, the reflection of the lov-
ing and transcendent design of God for the
progress of the human family on earth, a re-
flection in which we see the heavenly message
of the Gospel».

It was a senseless talk that buried all of his dignity as “Vicar of
Christ”. How could anyone dare praise that Masonic organization,
whose aim is to attain the enslavement of the peoples, the annul-
ment of national autonomies, the dissolution of national sovereign-
ties? An organization pursuing dominance over the world and over
the consciences, pursuing but a political dictatorship, an economic
dictatorship, an ideological, ethical and moral dictatorship?

Paul VI, on the contrary, saw it as the ultimate realization of the
“design of God” on earth, as the ultimate hope for humanity.

But was it not then his impiety saying that the UN is the politi-
cal image of the Church, the earthly reflection of the Gospel, the re-
al and universal expression of the design of God?

193

THE MASONIC “TOLERANCE”

- “In the Grand Alliance Treaty signed in Lausanne in 1875, between
the Supreme Ancient Council and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Convent
approved the recognition of a superior force of which it proclaims
the existence under the name of the Great Architect of the Universe.
The immediate protests that rise from different countries ... the con-
vent, after reaffirming the existence of a creative principle, formulat-
ed immediately, this other principle: «Freemasonry does not impose
any restriction on the free pursuit of truth, and to ensure that
freedom to anyone that it expects all tolerance». (Salvatore Farina,
The Book of Rituals of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Rome
Piccinelli, 1946, p. 304).

- Masonic religious tolerance, in fact, is intolerance, because: «The
only true religion of Freemasonry is Gnosticism. All other reli-
gions, especially Catholicism, have taken from Freemasonry all
that could be true. They [Freemasonry] do not have their own
theories that are ridiculous or false». (“Freemasonry”, Florence
1945, p. 69).

- In 1900, an International Masonic Congress was held in Paris whose
aim was to establish relationships between the different powers of the
Masonic world. Soon after the annual convent met at the Grand Ori-
ent and the speaker [of the meeting] conveyed the reason: «The Vat-
ican is the headquarters of an international evil, and a federation
of all Masonic obedience is absolutely necessary in opposition [to
it]».

The Congress, then, also concerned itself with the “secular”.

The Masonic Blatino churches spread Masonic education to the «sec-
ular masses, gradually leaving the religions of the past».

The Freemason Cocq was more explicit: «It is religion itself that
must be destroyed, that is the belief in superstition and the su-
pernatural and dogma» (Applause). «Tolerance - he added - is a
fundamental principle of our order, but tolerance does not mean
inaction... religion itself must be destroyed». (E. Delassus, “II
problema dell’ora presente”, Desclee e C. Tipografi-Editori 1907,
vol. I, p. 37).

194

-■

On top: A demonstration of the liturgy. Ballerina, Gloria Meyman, teaches ballet to Priests,
Brothers and Sisters. The dances should symbolize the prayer, adoration, and joy during
the various “parts” of the Mass. (From: “Twin Circle”, November 14, 1976, p. 7).

Below: Three Sisters (Sister Eucharistia, from Sydney, Sister Grace Marie, from Bald-
winsville, Sister Pauline McCornick, from Albany) dressed as clowns that “minister” dur-
ing Mass! (Snapshot published by “Syracuse Herald American” of 09.06.1981).

Aiki uia

gJ; "TTP — — _ _ r ^ rM ^ J

Oanj 'me cglfae g e /

Saint-Hyacinjhe, on (
Sawera fa df

minwiaw („ Hou-Ups;

hi! Co***

[a i t, i , m ;r Ji*

JjT

■^.mjL r iPjg

[[[■mjI

EX i

mm-

IL CARDINALE

SULLA GIOSTRA

m_- _ _____

Above: Cardinal Medeiros, Archbishop of Boston, during a visit to an amusement park. He
is with some religious!

Below: Newspaer article saying that Paul VI received a group of youths with shorts and
indecently dressed.

..MMjirariB v a asm u anum r*mn mm M fw*jL

in calzoncini
dal Papa

r.-pMii. Li uuflllLi ™ rntw* * “T™ 1 "' **"'■

* lt<™

L! fJl hctt |l J ' -Hi ’ tolnUBnc dn P*l l *l 1 - 1

P .ul V|, Ihi I >!■ l^mnii «K-*HI . (I'.imuI ] lift II fVn
[iril V! ( | | , -rliw ipii "iln-kmi h" I'uimIh lit kTVlir

V“rre cATi ft >i

de Nantes

JtWB KA1. HE MONTI Ml - p»—i ■ -

Mgr Lefebvre
relance )e debat
avec le pape ,

ipwfe-i.H ^iMm

lrirli!i MliriP II
lNf%l!fa i t d-

L r AtrinN uuiJiiiC -

ll Ccnlne fnu! 'll diC

• d

e i

:res ma

rcl

wot sur 1

| I If Li

Top left: a Bishop... on the
drums!

Above right: El Salvador: A
Communist priest distributes
Communion at a rebel camp.

Below: A Sister... guerrilla armed
with rifles.

Evangelization of armed rob-
bery?.. One fruit of the demonic
“liberation theology”!

199

PAUL VI RECOIT
TOUT LE MONDE

irAp-.IU

.UKAHaAI HESCHli

|' H lJ 'll I lit 1 KilLmabiU - 1

PAUL in kECfjrT HHf r-jfiiJji Mi Jit

r*p jij],

OOUIMI AI Yll< A
CYIllOMQUL

I| I r.- I . I n * [ U I. -i

LINE PERMFRE C±NE

■

'i | ■] ' i ST

jfv jtyyf

[ (Tii 1

1 \I||H||

Sfc:

f r ;f is

E»'^

«Communism is intrinsically wrong,
and no one who would save
Christian civilization
may collaborate with it in any
undertaking whatsoever.

Those who permit themselves to be deceived
into lending their aid towards the
triumph of Communism
in their own country, will be the first
to fall victims of their error.

And the greater the antiquity and grandeur
of the Christian civilization in the regions
where Communism successfully penetrates,
so much more devastating will be
the hatred displayed by the godless».

(Pius XI, “Divini Redemptoris” - 1937)

202

CHAPTER VII

HIS “OPENING TO COMMUNISM”

In Reinhard Raffalt’s book: “Where is the Vatican Headed?”
with subtitle: “The Pope Between Religion and Politics”, the Ger-
man author offers a slanted and yet precise judgment as to Paul
Vi’s action in this field. The chapter dedicated to the Vatican Ost-
politik is meaningfully titled: “Hamlet on the Holy See”. While it
stresses the “mens” [mind] of Pius XII on Communism, who de-
fines it as “a tragedy for humanity”, which has the consequences
of “excommunication” for all Catholics professing their Commu-
nist faith, through his constant refusal of any contact with Commu-
nism, because it is “intrinsically aberrant”, the chapter goes on to
show the path followed by the Church under Pius XII’s former col-
laborator, Monsignor Montini, the future Paul VI.

To Paul VI, that is, Communism represented a hope, for it real-
ized (?!) a social justice higher than that realized by Capitalism. Did
not the Gospel, perhaps, preach a justice on this earth, too? And so,
would it not be possible to persuade the Communists to adopt the
Christian ideal of communal life?

Paul VI, therefore, countered Pius XII’s line with his prag-
matic line: Communism, albeit atheistic, does not imply, for that
reason, a basic inability to meet the social expectations contained in
the Gospel. This was Monsignor Montini’s “contrasting” attitude

203

toward Pius XII, convinced as he was of the necessity of contribut-
ing, primarily, to the improvement of the material living conditions
of the entire humanity. Hence his “secret relations” with the Com-
munist Party (PC), ever since he collaborated, or, better said, “be-
trayed” Pius XII. By now, that “betrayal” of Montini’s belongs
to History. A true and authentic history! It was 1954, and illness
and old age were already exacting their toll on Pius XII. There was
Colonel Arnauld, of the French Deuxieme Bureau, the Brigadier
General for the Intelligence Service, and Pius XII’s “James
Bond”. He was a career officer, then, but, above all, a man of strict
morals and a practicing Catholic. At the end of the war, he left the
British and resumed his post within the ranks of the French “Secret
Services”. It was then, shortly after the armistice, that the “Quai
d’Orsay” (French Foreign Ministry) entrusted him with a mission
to Pope Pius XII, to ask him to expel from their dioceses twenty-two
French bishops, whom Charles De Gaulle’s government held re-
sponsible of having favored Marshal Petain’s regime. Having ex-
posed to Pius XII the request of his government (received by the
Pope “very coldly”), Pius XII asked him for he wanted to know
“the personal judgment of the ambassador, of the Catholic, of
the officer, whose sister is Mother Superior of a Convent in
Rome”. The colonel bade for time in order to study the “dossier”
of the twenty-two bishops. When he returned to Rome, he mani-
fested his “judgment” on the case; Pius XII concurred with his judg-
ment and had only two bishops removed from France, refusing to
“punish the others”.

Shortly after, Colonel Arnauld resigned from the Deuxieme Bu-
reau. Pius XII, having got wind of it, summoned him to Rome and
asked him to become his personal agent, answering only to him, be-
cause -he said- “A diplomat must stick to some rules and be
very prudent; unlike an agent”.

The Colonel took on the offer, took an oath to the Pontiff and set
out on his new mission. During a tour in the East, he entered into a
relationship with the Lutheran bishop of Uppsala, Primate of Swe-
den, whom, holding Pius XII in great esteem, did not hesitate to
lend him precious services, such as helping out members of the
Clergy, held in detention, and the stealthy introduction of Bibles in-
to Russia, etc. In the course of one of these meetings (toward the
summer of 1954), the Archbishop of Uppsala suddenly said to the

204

colonel, “The Swedish authorities are perfectly aware of the Vat-
ican’s relations with the Soviets”. The Colonel promptly decided
to question Pius XII once he returned from his mission. Back in
Italy, in fact, he questioned the Holy Father, whom, quite astounded
by this statement, asked the Colonel to tell Monsignor Brilioth that
the Vatican had no relations with the Soviets.

But when Colonel Arnauld returned to Sweden, the Archbishop
of Uppsala reiterated to him what he had said before, begging him
to get back to him as soon as he completed his new mission. The
Colonel accepted and went to see the Archbishop. Monsignor Bril-
ioth, then, handed him a sealed envelope, addressed to Pius XII,
begging him to place it directly into his hands, ensuring that no one
else in the Vatican knew about it. All Monsignor Brilioth told the
Colonel, was: «This envelope contains the “EVIDENCE” of the
relations the Vatican entertains with the Soviets».

Once in Rome, the Colonel handed the envelope over to Pius
XII, who read it in his presence, as the color drained from his face.

In brief: the last official text signed by the Pro-Secretary of
State, Monsignor Montini, bears the date of September 23, 1954 1 .
On November 1, 1954, Pius XII removed Monsignor Montini as
the Secretary of State.

From other information it was learned that, in that disastrous fall
of 1954, Pius XII had also discovered that his pro-Secretary of
State “had kept from him all communications relating to the
schism of the Chinese Bishops” 2 , whose case was growing worse.

Now, the fact that Monsignor Montini had been removed as Sec-
retary of State since he had fallen into disgrace with Pius XII
(whom he “betrayed”), was also admitted by Jean Guitton in his
book: “Paul VI Secret”, wherein he writes: «No one ever knew,
nor will ever know why Pius XII, having made him Archbishop
of Milan, had not made him a cardinal, which took away from
him the possibility of becoming pope» 3 ... And, further on, he
writes: «He (Paul VI) goes through an experience similar to that

1 “Pontifical Documents”, 1954, p. 640.

2 CRC, 97, October 1975, p. 12.

3 “Pontifical Documents”, 1954, p. 407-417.

205

which Pius XII had inflicted upon him: that of the “diffidentia”,
as Pius XII seemed to have lost the confidence he had placed in
him». Sure, Jean Guitton had no knowledge of the “betrayal” of
his “friend”, that is, of that “Ostpolitik” which, as Colonel Ar-
nauld said: «Montini had already a policy of his own, which was
not that of the reigning Pope. That policy, today, is official, and
goes by the name of “Vatican Ostpolitik”. And so no reason ex-
ists anymore to keep these episodes, these facts now consigned to
History, locked up in a drawer».

And it is truly so! That is why we talk about it here, as well as
for the reason that I could personally verify the “truth” of Pius
XTT’s heavy action toward his closest collaborator, through a per-
sonal “meeting” with General G. Leconte, of the French Secret
Services.

I was introduced to him by another agent of the “Secret Ser-
vices”, Officer Masmay, whose guest I was, at his home, many
times. Now, the General spoke to me, at first, of many things relat-
ing to the present day Church, as, for example, that the father of
Cardinal Danieleu was a Freemason of the Grand Orient, and
that when he became Minister of National Education, it was he to
impose the secularization of the schools. To my query if also Cardi-
nal Danieleu was a Freemason, he replied with this passage: “That
same question -he said - I asked, on the phone, to a friend of mine,
who, however, hung up on me with no response”. He then went on
to inform me about many other high Prelates and some Jesuits,
Freemasons; primarily, - of Freemason Cardinal Villot 4 . He told
me that Villot ’s parents were both Freemasons of the Rosecru-
cians. And he told me of an episode, recounted to him by the very
Officer subject of the “fact”: when this [officer] learned that the
Bishop of Lione, Villot, had to leave the Diocese to go to Rome, he

4 That Cardinal Villot were a “freemason” I had learned already from the officer
of the French “Secret Service” Mr. Masmay, whose guest I had been. He told me,
more than once, that Villot’s parents belonged to Freemasonry, and that his house
was contiguous to “Villa Villot”, but that his parents had always forbidden him
and his brothers to get in touch with the Villots, on account of their being
“freemasons”.

206

paid him a visit, to wish him farewell and congratulate him on that
invitation. But Villot said to him: «Je suis envoye a Rome pour
devenir Pape». «And thus - remarked the General with a smile -
rather than summoned, he was “sent” by the leasders of
Freemasonry». The General, then, went on to disclose to me a “se-
cret” he had learned from a High Officer of the Saudi Arabian es-
pionage (an advisor to the King). He told me: «Cardinal Villot will
not become pope, as he would pursue the opening to the left of
the Vatican Ostpolitik, which is not at all palatable to the Arab
anti-Communist world».

After more confidences on persons of the Catholic Hierarchy
and other Jesuits, he suddenly asked me this question: «Do you be-
lieve that Paul VI is a Freemason, too?». And without waiting for
my answer, he handed me a book of Carlo Falconi: “Vue et Enten-
du au Concile”, [“Seen and Heard at the Council”] published be-
fore Montini became Pope, and showed me a “passage” of the
book, on page 69, in which it is said that a big “33” of Freema-
sonry assured that even Montini “serait inscrit dans un Loge
magonnique” [“Would be included in a Masonic Lodge”].

At last, he recounted to me the story of the removal of Mon-
signor Montini as Secretary of State by Pius XII, as he was re-
ally working for Russia, unbeknownst to the Pope, and, there-
fore, in betrayal of him. It is a fact that Montini, while Pius XII
was still living, never set a foot in the Vatican again.

To my last question: «But why, then, did Pius XII send Montini
to Milan, such a prestigious Cardinal See, after Montini had be-
trayed him»? The General answered, smiling: «Nay! It wasn’t
Pius XII to send him to Milan. We have here another “dossier”,
under the heading “Cardinal Pizzardo”, containing documents
that say otherwise. After all, it would not have escaped you that
Pius XII never elevated him to the rank of Cardinal, although Milan
were traditionally a Cardinal see, hence Montini found himself re-
jected from the Roman Curia and removed, for good, by that very
Pope he had exerted not a little influence upon; and he was exclud-
ed by the future Conclave as Pius XII was determined to bar him
from the Sacred College. Even his consecration to archbishop, af-
ter his nomination, was almost ignored by Pius XII».

At that point, the General dialed a telephone number, calling
Colonel Amauld, advising him that I would be paying him a call di-

207

rectly. He rose from his armchair and kindly escorted me to the door,
saying: «Now, Colonel Arnauld is expecting you, the Colonel
who brought Pius XII the ‘evidence’ of Montini’s betrayal».

Presently, in fact, I arrived at the Colonel’s house. He was ill and
sitting in a wheelchair. His wife was with him. He made me sit op-
posite him, and, after exchanging the usual courtesies, he set out to
tell me what I previously recounted, confirming, in 22 minutes, that
Montini entertained obscure, covert relations, of his own initia-
tive, with Russia and some other Eastern powers, hence Pius
XII “expelled” him from office of the Secretary of State. He then
told me that Pius XII was forced to accept that Montini be sent to
Milan, but that he did not make him Cardinal, never granted him an
audience (throughout the remaining four years of Pius XII’s life),
and he repeatedly made it understood to the Cardinals that he would
not have him as his successor.

As one can see, these are not “State disclosures”, since every-
thing I heard, with my own ears, on the Montini “case”, is still in
the “French Archives”.

***

Now, to continue, I would say that there was a sort of prehisto-
ry in the relationships Paul VI entertained with the Communist Par-
ty, ever since he was still Monsignor Montini. I quote, in this regard,
a “document” from Washington’s National Archives, in which
proof is provided of the future Pope Paul Vi’s secret meetings with
the Italian Communist Leader, Palmiro Togliatti, as far back as Ju-
ly of 19445.

These were meetings and conversations that always took
place unbeknownst to Pius XII, as he was deeply hostile to any
contacts with the Marxists.

We provide, here, along with the integral text of the original doc-

5 1 would have you note that the “Historical Compromise” theory, expounded by
[Italian Communist Party’s secretary] Berlinguer, features almost the identical
words used by Togliatti [Italian Communist Party’s former secretary] and Monti-
ni (American magazine “Veritas” of April 1974).

208

QPWSt (if rTfiATroc crpu tiT

P^ 4 lkiUn>t 4 £

iHtrjia U ji^MiB>r 1-1441

3M.1C

T“l 1 1*= t-l ' 'J filTt-V' Mdlf

Flr.r J'l *1EC flHuLC

' "A- «■•■■-
Fiptfii- m

*"'■ S3 Am fill

niuiiiiiii f.]

1 ] JiiSj JUi
R ui

li "■, in J'Jtjf .i lii l^j ft l

OlhlEtu-, In fct'iLnf ,iu.. . ir.iJ^., e- 7 l-\ ■ I ■ ,
?Jtr. Ilnunl IniijL, u.j,[-,i.i, +*i| Fj-.l *1 rL Lb
Te>[ILi 151b EoroMili-t rtH!|tffp ti.bh.ME h-l(L-LU
Ln Ihi jKioai Eiitcniinx, T,.jit . ,..*ii ,. Ll-.nl n-
T J T I 1 :■ ■ [ ;■ r _>3 j e-j . i^ 1 fi*I»L ■*, ■ l j h .i l:i ■ I L, J
□ i n ■ ■■■U L it’ ixb Lr« Cnrl ibdu-|!|u-jTFtEt i.,. i
1 '■ L ’ (.rrLivi.

?. - m-p 'll Jr-jlili fliiT, 5b[’lF.'.L hid ptLim-Ll
F-Ttint* r*ri -eI'LJei if fchr ThrLi-

IJin- C'r^ ->| .1 i* fM-n p "1 j'. Ii mitiSutij

Lhl PlLjlLu.l fcir'-u ■J.ilf El-U'.plU • l?dira ll
Uil Tiiiii 3 t.iilf--,f|i -n IiJUiJ-, t )ul Fl m w ■
■nq-uil. J pc !.-■ nni TiupLlui hr ■ a^aaca r«iairvi
tin (illtn-Lld inn.

J, Tfcfriah JlWPfi- *f irii Cin Lo LEdn -p— FDcfi Uc ;»rtj| n
liuSiiLti m. ■■(,< Si c*iHj i.i I.- Pi Linn til
Ir.nrpn-ij i,.r >rui„- . LtlM >.>i rh : Lf I -ui Cm-
tta r .1 fji itiipiM *J >i in

Gircaritlc f,' ,r*iiJP I nit tiimiqt mi fmw,-, kiunja
i - j lii i. 1 , 31 id liii&r-i. r i ilii DiJ*r nn.d, tip
!I*°LF -dit i-piihp# T-ai I Li ml H>in ii|h II ■ ff-f Emm,
*.-l-iF-i LCi ip|,-rd|i E iiljrn ■end-

p|f|r «]Lk *vpj .’1 fuidLi II EElvpI 7 Lit i 't < nwinLii
IP ri «lj ** in nili-F p..-- ini|,

*. Pii t Lie ft mi MbT-iin Ufn , iMUnl i T^;lticrl

CEE tbfl Id TEL J iT-1-E E ‘TiLiFL H Lilli.- L n I I '■ rnliu

The first page of the American document, quoted from the article, concerning the meeting
Montini-Togliatti, which occurred July 10, 1944.

ument, in English, the integral translation of that “document”, very
compromising, of a meeting “Montini-Togliatti meeting”, which
took place on July 10, 1944.

It is subdivided into five paragraphs:

1) On last July 10, at the house of a Christian Democratic min-
ister, the Vatican pro-Secretary of State, Monsignor Giovanni Bat-
tista Montini, met with Togliatti, Communist minister without port-

209

folio in the Bonomi Government. Their conversation focused on the
grounds that bred the agreement between the Christian Democratic
and the Communist parties.

2) Ever since his return to Italy, Togliatti had confidential meet-
ings with eminent personalities of the Christian Democratic Party.
These contacts represented the political backdrop of Togliatti’s ad-
dress of Saturday, July 9, at the “Brancaccio” theater [in Rome], and
the premise for the warm reception of the address on the part of the
Catholic press.

3) Through the leaders of the Christian Democratic Party, Togli-
atti succeeded in conveying to the Vatican his impression, according
to which Stalin’s view as to religious freedom is by now accepted
by Communism, and the agreement between Russia and the allied
Nations is marked by a democratic character. Concurrently, the Holy
See reached Togliatti through the same intermediaries and made
known its view as to the future agreement with Soviet Russia on the
issue of Communism, both in Italy and in other Countries.

4) The discussion between Monsignor Montini and Togliatti is
the first direct contact between a high Prelate of the Vatican and a
Communist leader. Having reviewed the situation, they concurred
upon the practical possibility of a contingent alliance between
Catholics and Communists in Italy, which could win the three
parties, Christian Democratic, Socialist and Communist, an ab-
solute majority, sufficient to allow them to keep in check any po-
litical situation.

5) A “plan” has been drafted to build the platform of a possible
agreement between the Christian Democratic Party and the Com-
munist and Socialist Parties. In practice, they would be following
the fundamental lines along which an understanding may be created
between the Holy See and Russia, within the framework of their
fresh relations.

It was the first “Historical Compromise”. [Ed. Note: An-
nounced in late 1973 by the Italian Communist Party Secretary En-
rico Berlinguer, it was the project of an historic alliance (worked out
with Christian Democrat Aldo Moro, then murdered by the Red
Brigades) with the Socialist and Christian Democrat parties that
would allow the Communist Party access to government in a way
that might be acceptable to United States]. But Togliatti pushed his

210

contacts with the Holy See even farther, through Monsignor Mon-
tini, the most outspoken anti-Fascist in the Vatican, who made no
secret of his sympathies toward Socialism.

Another proof of this is that other very serious “accusation”
against Montini, for his betrayal of the Homeland.

And it remains to be explained why the fact that Monsignor
Montini, besides betraying Pius XII (hence the Church, then gov-
erned by Pius XII), was also a “traitor of the Homeland”, is not
taken into account. And yet it should come as no surprise that Mon-
signor Montini was “enlisted” by the “Secret Services” of the
United States as a privileged “informer” of the Vatican, during
the years of World War II.

I transcribe here what the “Gazzettino” of June 1 st 1996, wrote,
under the title: “Montini was an American Spy”:

«... To propose a collaboration with Pius XII’s
most influential advisor, Secretary of State “in
pectore”, was done, in early 1942, directly by
William Donovan, creator of the OSS (Office of
Strategic Services). Montini ’s task was that of
providing any useful “information” as to the
movements of the Germans in Rome, and to
gather the “voices” circulating in Benito Mus-
solini’s circles, as well as in Crown’s circles.

The “revelations” are contained in some “docu-
ments”, unpublished, discovered in the Wash-
ington’s “National Archives” by the editors En-
nio Caretto and Bruno Marolo, authors of the
book: “Made in USA. The American Origins of
the Italian Republic”».

Another “betrayal” that does not certainly play into the hands of
those pushing for his “beatification”: a Paul VI who “betrayed”
Pius XII, and a Paul VI who “betrayed” his Homeland.

Now, to continue the discussion of the “secret meetings” be-
tween Togliatti and Montini, we note that Prelate a personal friend
of the communist leader’s, namely Monsignor Giuseppe de Luca,
arranged those contacts.

But it would be Pope John XXIII -from whom Montini received
his purple - to open even wider to Montini the path of the “dia-
logue” with the Communist world, after his famous encyclical
“Pacem in Terris” of April 10, 1962, in which Communism,
though not directly named, is however considered in full dialectical
evolution, that is, no longer synonymous with Karl Marx’s doctrine,
although retaining its principles 6 .

Paul Vi’s Pontificate would thus follow that path, cleared by
John XXIII, who had commenced difficult negotiations with both
the Patriarch of Moscow, and with that of Constantinople,
Athenagoras. The aim was to ensure some “Observers” at the
Council, planned for the fall of 1962. For that reason, J. Willebrands
was sent to Moscow to negotiate with Archbishop Nicodemus.
Along that Giovannean line, then, proceeded the entire Paul
Vi’s pontificate, always meeting the wishes of the Kremlin, anx-
ious to secure “the possibility of inducing the Church of Rome to fa-
cilitate, through ecumenism, the acceptance of the Communist real-
ity by the Catholic public opinion in the satellite Countries, and, in
general, to guide the Vatican onto diplomatic positions conver-
gent with those of the USSR in the field of disarmament and
maintenance of a “Pax Sovietica”.

Paul VI made a show of his spirit of reconciliation with the
Communist world, for example, on the occasion of the “Episco-
pal Synod” of Rome, in the Fall of 1971. The theme was “Justice
and Peace”. The Vatican had given instructions to impress on the
Synod a strong anti-capitalist spin, in dealing with the injustices
caused to the undeveloped Countries by the most technologically

6 That Encyclical had been preceded by the mentioned “private audience” of
Krusciov’s son-in-law, Alexis Adjybei. It should be known that that audience
ended with Pope John XXIII’s words, “Only opposite conceptions stand be-
tween us. It is not so big a deal!” (?!!).

212

advanced nations. But Archbishop Maxim Hermanioux, Metropol-
ite of the Ukrainians, attending the works, had the courage to react,
saying:

«I find it highly surprising that, in the project
and in the base account, one would deal with all
the possible forms of injustice: political, cultur-
al, economical and international, but not with
the most deplorable to a Christian: the perse-
cution of the Church of Christ»!

Archbishop Hermanioux was speaking for the faithful of the
Ukrainian Catholic Church, who remained in Russia, persecuted by
the Communists, and certainly, he was alluding to the events of the
previous years. In 1970, in fact, the Patriarch of Moscow, Pimen,
had announced, during his investiture, that the Ukrainian Catholic
Church “was no more”. And Cardinal Willebrands, Pontifical ne-
gotiator since 1962, official envoy of Paul VI, at the ceremony, had
failed to react, neither on the spot, nor after his return to Rome.
Paul VI, in this way, gave victory to atheist Moscow, persecutor
of the Catholic faithful.

But in Rome Cardinal Joseph Slipyi (following 17 years of in-
carceration in Soviet concentration camps, and narrowly escaping
execution), was already directing a large community of Ukrainian
faithful who had emigrated to Canada, to the United Stated and
above all to Australia. The Hierarchy of his Church, in June of
1971, approached Paul VI, on behalf of the entire community, re-
questing the nomination of the great archbishop to Patriarch (a
dignity whose functions, in reality, Slipyi was already carrying out),
but Paul VI, on July 7, rejected the request, which he considered
“impossible, at least at this point and time”.

Slipyi, then, convened a particular “Ukrainian Synod” (as it
was, on the other hand, his prerogative). Paul VI, in vexation, had
it promptly declared illegal. But the Ukrainians went on with it,
and that action carried not a little consequence upon the works of
the Council.

Paul VI, however, never forgot it, and one year later he took
his revenge. The Freemason Cardinal Villot, his Secretary of
State, addressed a statement to the Ukrainian bishops informing

213

them that: «The Ukrainian Church has no longer authority upon
its Bishops outside of the Holy See». With that action, Paul VI
stripped Cardinal Slipyi of any authority and his Church lost all
its autonomy. And so the Soviets had been satisfied. And in that
way, perhaps, Paul VI believed - in this umpteenth illusion of his -
to foster relations between the Vatican and the Kremlin.

In any case, that was the style of his pragmatism, which he al-
ways practiced in his relationships with Moscow. As in regard to the
appointments of the Bishops in Lithuania, he approved the Soviet
choices, despite their perverted continuous political control. And
when, in May of 1972, an Ukrainian student set himself ablaze, pub-
licly, in protest against Moscow’s oppression toward the Church, the
utter “silence” of the Vatican was more than eloquent, to anyone.

But Paul VI would always put up with anything. Even when
Moscow used a contemptuous demeanor with Archbishop Casaroli,
on the occasion of the signature of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Arms, at Moscow, Paul VI abstained from any reaction.

Silence, always silence! Even in the face of the continuous per-
secutions against the Catholic faithful, who were being thrown in-
to camps, tortured, shipped to Siberia, and murdered. One could
hardly count the most distinct and obvious gestures in favor of the
Soviets, on the part of Paul VI. He even removed his cardinals
from their sees, precisely on account of their intransigence toward
the local Governments, thus depriving them of any influence. Con-
sequently, on December 18, 1974, he “relieved” Cardinal Mind-
szenty, from his office of “Primate”.

In vain Cardinal Mindszenty put up a resistance, in name of the
“damage to religious life and the confusion such a measure
would cause in the souls of the Catholics and clerics faithful to
the Church”. Lamentably, Paul VI would have the upper hand with
his “Ostpolitik” always kneeling before the criminal “reason of
State” “Good of the State”.

And so, on January 5, 1974, the Holy See publicized Paul Vi’s
decision, breaking the “news” of the removal of Cardinal Mind-
szenty from the Primatial Episcopal See of Esztergom.

Mindszenty would note, in his “Memoirs”: «I begged him
(Paul VI) to recede from that decision, but to no avail».

A laconic hint to his inner drama, illuminating, however, his ul-
timate immolation on the Cross of Christ.

214

Unfortunately, on June 8, 1977, Paul VI even lowered himself
to receive Janos Kadar. No Communist Party Secretary had ever
crossed the threshold of a Pope’s private study. Sadly, the first over-
ture would have taken place, outside the norm, between John XXI-
II and Agiubei. Kadar would be the second. He, the assassin in
pectore, was the warden, of Cardinal Mindszenty, the great
“Confessor” of the “Church of Silence”. That gesture of Paul
Vi’s, however, constituted a shame for his inhumane and scatter-
brained Ostpolitik, which left hundreds and hundreds of thousands
of Catholics in the camps and under torture, without a minimal
solemn protest, public, before the world, in order to remain faith-
ful to his pro-Soviet political line that would end up, however, dis-
astrously, into a heap of rubble, stained in the blood of its “Mar-
tyrs”.

Among these, stands out the great Cardinal Mindszenty, humil-
iated by Paul VI before the whole world, with his “deposition”
from the office of “Primate of Hungary”. He who had never ac-
cepted the about-turn of a Church on Her knees before the world.
He, the symbol and banner of an intrepid and irreducible Catholi-
cism, who had never stooped before the persecutors of the “Church
of Silence”, or to the “priests of the peace”, the new unworthy
preachers of a Gospel in a sociological and Marxists key.

GLORY TO YOU, CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, CONFESSOR
AND MARTYR!

And yet, this Great Confessor of the Faith, laid to rest on May
15, 1975, in the Hungarian Chapel of St. Ladislao, at Mariazell
(Austria), instead of an eulogy - as he deserved - saw then, not
even a “Representative” of the “new” Hungarian Catholic
Church, which never even sent a wreath and a word. The Apostolic
Nuncio to Austria did not even attend. Only the “free world” -
4,000 Hungarians exiled throughout the world, 250 priests and
about a hundred nuns - had convened before the tomb of that Apos-
tle-Martyr of our times.

***

But by now, on the wave of Vatican II, the Holy See had taken
the path of the “dialogue” even with the Communist criminal pow-
er, through compromises and collaboration. And thus any anti-Com-

215

munist position was regarded as outdated and unrealistic; and, be-
cause of the utopia of a possible “normalization” of the ecclesias-
tical position with the Soviet States, the Church of Paul VI left our
Martyrs of the Faith to their fate in exchange for an illusory free-
dom-on-parole 7 .

Hence in that new climate of submission and treachery, the po-
sition of Cardinal Mindszenty had become embarrassing for their
dull “dialogue” between Rome and Budapest. And for that reason
Monsignor Casaroli had called on the Cardinal, proposing him a dis-
honorable proffer of “freedom” in exchange of his renunciation of
his intransigence toward Communism. But the dignified figure of
Mindszenty disdained that disgraceful “blackmail”, and rejoined
that a “Reigning- Cardinal” could not abandon his flock. But Paul
VI, in 1971, also urged by the Freemason Cardinal Koenig, sent
in Monsignor Aagon to bend the Cardinal, guaranteeing him free-
dom in the West, and the preservation of the title of “Primate of
Hungary”, as well as the care of the Hungarian communities, ex-
iled and emigrated. With that, however, Paul VI wanted him to
hand over his office to a successor acceptable to the Budapest
regime, leave Hungary without any statements, and, once in the
West, abstain from any action that “could upset the relations be-
tween the Apostolic See and the Hungarian Government, or
could cause any harm to the Government of the People’s Re-
public of Hungary”. As a last requirement, Cardinal Mindszenty
would not publish his “Memoirs”, rather, he was to leave the
legacy to the Vatican, which would then proceed as it saw fit 8 .

7 See, for the story of this tragedy, the book of the Jesuit Father Alessio U. Flori-
di: “Moscow and the Vatican”, “La Casa di Matriona” Editions, Milan 1976.

8 J. Mindszenty, “Memoirs”, Rusconi, Milan 1974, p. 356-357. - In the published
text some pages are missing, the gravest, on account of Paul Vi’s specific and re-
iterated will. I learned it, “apertis verbis”, from Cardinal Mindszenty in person,
whom, in my personal encounter with Him, at Vienna, on December 14, 1971,
following two and half hours of passionate and enlightening conference, told me,
“Believe me: Paul VI has delivered the Christian Nations into Communism’s
hands”!

216

Cardinal Mindszenty, a worthy man in spite of it all, declined
the offer, both because he did not intend to submit his actions and
statements to the judgment of a criminal Marxist Government, and
because his renunciation under those kinds of Soviet “censures”
would have been an act of infamy, and because his silence and his
omissions would have been received as a scandal by his faithful,
and read as a caving in to the Kadar-dictatorship. And so he even re-
fused to sign the record of that interview. But the other Freema-
son-Cardinal, Casaroli, determined to bend his resolve, turned to
US President Nixon so that the Cardinal would be forced out of the
American Embassy. And that is what happened. Mindszenty, hav-
ing lost diplomatic asylum, was compelled to give up, and on
September 28, 1971, He arrived in Rome. Paul VI feigned to re-
new his role and his freedom; instead, barely two weeks later,
the Holy See announced the resumption of diplomatic relations
with Budapest. Besides disgracefully lifting the excommunica-
tion Pius XII had inflicted against the cleric who collaborated
with the Kadar regime, months later, he also reneged on the
promise of leaving Mindszenty as the spiritual caretaker of the
Hungarians exiles in the West. But he did not stop there, as he
added the humiliation of forcing him to submit any sermon or
speech he were to utter in public to preliminary Vatican cen-
sure 9 .

At this point, the Cardinal left Rome, and made contacts with his
emigrant and exiled people. But Paul VI promptly resumed his at-
tacks on the Cardinal - whose shoes he was unworthy to kiss -
and on November 1, 1973, he forced him to resign from his po-
sition as Archbishop-Primate of Hungary. Dignifiedly, yet firmly,
Cardinal Mindszenty, on December 8th, replied to Paul VI that he
could not give in spontaneously to his intimidation; and he illustrat-
ed to him the heavy consequences his collaborationist policy with
the Marxist Regime would bring about 10 . But Paul VI (who had be-
trayed Pius XII already, precisely for his covert maneuvers with

9 Joseph Mindszenty, “Memoirs”, p. 363-367.

10 Joseph Mindszenty “Memoirs”, p. 370-371.

217

Moscow), on December 18 informed him, cynically, that Hun-
gary’s Primatial See had been declared vacant already, and,
therefore, he must consider himself dismissed. Mindszenty took
note of Paul Vi’s unspeakable action, bequeathing to him any re-
sponsibilities for the consequences, but informed the press that the
“measure” against him had been taken unilaterally, against his
own will. After which, he felt free to publish his “Memoirs”, in
which he narrates - in the closing chapter - also “persecutions” he
suffered on the part of the Vatican diplomacy and on the part of
the apologists of the “Ostpolitik”!

And now, let us again ask ourselves: Is this the Paul VI one
would be willing to “beatify”? Is it perhaps on account of those
excesses of “charity” he had toward that capital defender of the
Catholic Faith, diabolically encroached on by the Satanic Marxist
Empire? Lamentably, Paul VI would continue to ill-treat that
Martyr of the “Church of Silence”, placing on the Hungarian Pri-
matial See, in early 1976, as his successor, that darling of the
Freemasons Cardinal Koenig’s, Laszlo Lekai, former spokesman of
the Kadar Government by the Holy See, and defender of the ill-
famed “priests of the peace”, lackeys of the Marxist regime. Addi-
tionally, in 1977, Paul VI would welcome Kadar at the Vatican, in
full pomp, that Satanic persecutor of Mindszenty, that is, to whom
Paul VI reaffirmed even his confidence (!!) in the “dialogue on the
issues, open to the comprehension of the cares and of the action
of the State that are now appropriate” 11 .

***

That is the real Paul VI. A Pope whom, in defense of his Ost-
politik, always blind and a partner in crime with the enemies of
Christ, let millions and millions of Catholics rot in the Soviet gu-
lags, and millions more murdered, and let those Red pirates lay their
hands, without ever uttering a word, upon so many Nations, and
place them under the bloody Communist yoke.

11 “Corriere della Sera”, June 10, 1977.

218

And to his Ostpolitik, Paul VI sacrificed also Cardinal Slipyi,

Primate of the United Church of Ukraine. Arrested shortly upon be-
ing ordained Bishop, in 1940, and again on April 11, 1945, and sen-
tenced to eight years in prison and forced labor in the harshest So-
viet labor-camps, in Siberia, Polaria, Asia and Mordovia. After that,
he was again sentenced into exile to Siberia, and, in 1957, there was
a third conviction to seven “years imprisonment and forced la-
bor”, and, at last, he suffered a fourth conviction with the incar-
ceration in the harshest prison of Mordovia.

Now, even this pastor-Martyr of the “Church of Silence”,
who spent so many years in prisons, labor camps and mental insti-
tutions, and who defended, up until his death, after tortures and So-
viet prisons, his Ukrainian Catholic homeland and the Church, with
unfaltering faith and indomitable Episcopal conscience, was or-
dered into silence, always in the name of the Vatican Ostpolitik.
He nonetheless continued, as best he could, to denounce the absence
of any religious freedom in the USSR and the bloody “persecu-
tions” the Ukrainian Catholic Church was suffering, until when, in
1953, he, too, was confined in Rome, in the Vatican. With that
move, Paul VI had in fact placed him under “house arrest”, un-
der continuous surveillance, and prevented by the Ostpolitik
from working directly for his Ukrainian and Catholic people.

That same fate occurred to Cardinal Stephen Trochta, another
heroic Cardinal, shamefully mistreated by the Montinian Ost-
politik, without the minimal respect and veneration, after so many
years of prison and labor camps throughout most of his episcopal
life. He spent, in fact, three years at Dachau’s concentration camp.
Having become bishop of Litomericka, in 1947, the Communists ar-
rested him in 1951, and he underwent continuous interrogations for
three years. In 1954, he was sentenced to 25 more years of forced la-
bor, for “treason and espionage in favor of the Vatican”. After
those tortures, he was interned in a convent, at Radvanov. It was on-
ly during the “Prague Spring”, in 1969, that he was rehabilitated
and made cardinal; but he was still continuously followed, spied up-

219

on, prevented from exercising his functions. In April of 1974, after
the last criminal interrogation, which was to last 6 hours, he suffered
a break down. The following day, this hero of the Faith passed away.

Well, Paul VI had nothing to say about his Cardinal-Martyr,
whereas, on that very day of his passing, he sent out a telegram to
the wife of Justice Sossi, abducted by the Red Brigades [Brigate
Rosse - Italian Marxist-Leninist terrorist group formed in 1969,
seeking the establishment of a revolutionary state through armed
struggle and to separate Italy from the Western Alliance]

And then one talks of Christian “charity”! In Paul VI there
was never a minimal sensibility or respect toward that heroic de-
fender of the Faith, and it is difficult to find the words to stigma-
tize Paul Vi’s shameful Papal silence and inaction.

But that was always his cynical behavior with those that did not
share his views. Neither did he ever have a word, a reaction, or a cry
of pain for the persecuted and the Martyrs of the “Church of Si-
lence”, aching and bleeding to this day, sole true seed of a new
Christian Russia.

***

Even at the international level, Paul Vi’s heart always beat to
the left. We recall, for example, his stance on the Vietnam War,
when the Catholic Van Thieu, President of the Republic of South
Vietnam, went on a visit to the Vatican. Paul VI treated him with
dissimulated rudeness, while, on the contrary, he honored the Chief
of the North Vietnamese delegation to the Paris conference, Xuan
Thuy, with a warmhearted personal mention, paying homage, in this
manner, to Hanoi’s stance on peace.

The same style of deferent collaboration with Communism,
Paul VI applied in all of his relations, not only with Moscow, but
with the whole of the Communist world. And yet, in all of the
Countries submitted to the Soviets, the failure of the Vatican
was continuous and shameful. In spite of that, Paul VI continued
to regard the USSR as a “Holy Russia”, utopistically comprised of
Christianity and Socialism, underestimating, however, the will of
dominance of Communism, and showing his blindness as to the
global character of its perverted doctrine, which he envisioned,
however, as the matrix of universal history.

220

And it is with his pro-Communist “mens” [mind] that Paul VI
turned to the Chinese communists, as well. It is no secret that Bei-
jing had created a “National Chinese Church”, independent of
Rome and faithful to the Communist State. It is no secret that, since
1957, 45 Chinese clerics were consecrated bishops, unbeknownst to
the Pope. Rome had stood silent, without acknowledging or ap-
proving. Then came the “Cultural Revolution”, which soon devel-
oped into a total interdiction of the cult until 1965. Paul VI, at that
stage, took his first steps, granting his blessing, in his celebrated ap-
peal to “peace” before the UN, to the admission of China into the
United Nations. Paul VI, however, awaited in vain a sign of grati-
tude from Beijing. At that point, Paul VI raised the Apostolic repre-
sentation in Taiwan to the rank of Nunciature, which meant he had
taken notice of the sovereignty of the Chinese Nationalists over the
territory claimed by Beijing.

In 1966, he took another “step” in the direction of Mao. It was
on the occasion of the commemoration of the first six Chinese bish-
ops. At St. Peter’s Basilica, Paul VI declared that the Chinese youth
ought to know “with what care and love we consider their pre-
sent drive toward the ideals (!!) of a united and prosperous
life”(!!).

But even that exhortation went unanswered.

In 1971, Communist China was admitted into the UN. The Vat-
ican promptly saluted the event voicing out its satisfaction, even
tempered by the regret for the exclusion of Taiwan.

In any case, China in 1970 had already started a great offensive
against the USSR, shifting closer to the United States.

In that period, in the summer of 1970, there was a meaningful
“occurrence”. Marshal Tito had received Monsignor Casaroli, then
Minister of the Foreign Affairs of the Holy See, at Brioni, his sum-
mer residence. The head of the protocol begged him to wait a mo-
ment in the antechamber, before the Yugoslav President would see
him. The door suddenly opened, and there materialized, totally un-
expected, the Chinese Ambassador to Belgrade. They remained
alone for a few minutes. Shortly after, however, the Vatican policy
turned in the direction of China. But the Soviet reaction was not
long in coming. Hence the visit of Gromiko, Minister of Foreign Af-
fairs, to the Vatican. At the time, Italy recognized China and the
Holy See was not indifferent. But when Monsignor Casaroli trav-

221

eled to Moscow, shortly after, for the signature of the Treaty against
the proliferation of the nuclear weapons, the Minister of Religious
Affairs reserved for him a humiliating reception.

The evolution toward Beijing, however, continued. The Russians
were vexed and the Russian ambassador in Rome, whom in theory
had no business with the Vatican, paid the Vatican various calls, dur-
ing the winter of 1971-72. Paul VI oscillated between Moscow and
Beijing, but when he perceived the hostility of the Russians towards
the contacts between Beijing and the Vatican Curia, he resorted to a
kind of reservation, which was ill accepted by China. That Chinese
diffidence became apparent when President Nixon traveled to Chi-
na. The Holy See was not informed, and Casaroli learned the news
from the international press.

***

I relayed, here, with some particulars, only a few aspects of Paul
Vi’s relations with Communism and his objective of aperture and
concessions to the Communist States. Even when he speaks to
the right, - as Congar himself wrote - he acts, however, to the left;
and “facts” speak louder than words. Thanks to his apparent neu-
tralism and pacifism, during his Pontificate, however, subversion,
aggression, and violence always had the upper hand, so that the
Free World knew nothing but defeat and withdrawal. And while
Paul VI did nothing in order that this world would recover from its
immorality, religious indifference, incredulity, and from its resis-
tance to the Laws and Rights of God, he stirred the peoples not in
the name of God, but of justice. And even his justicialism was far
from being dictated by the zeal of God, or by that of the salvation
of the souls, but it carried all the spin of a social revolution.

I recall, here, a few other enigmatic and perplexing “posi-
tions” of Paul Vi’s:

On July 29, 1969, he traveled to Uganda, and there, he mani-
fested great respect toward “Prime Minister” Obote, a thief and
bloodsucker, who his people would overthrow shortly after. And
there, in the African heartland, Paul VI launched a “message” of
racial liberation and equality, which carried the flavor of an ap-
peal to a general social upheaval against the white man, in Rhode-
sia, in the South African Republic, and in Mozambique.

222

The French daily “LaCroix” of August 4, 1969, wrote:

«Paul VI did not fear to expose himself. And so
he forcefully recalls, against Portugal and
Rhodesia, that the Church supports the inde-
pendence of the national territories. Although
some pauses are sometimes necessary. The
Church, on Her part, has contributed to the in-
dependence of the African countries affirming
the dignity of persons and peoples, and making
them discover their own dignity. And She pro-
vides an example of this by Africanizing Her
own Hierarchy and setting out to do so where it
has not been possible hitherto. No African State
has anything to fear from the Church, quite the
contrary».

And it continued:

«That courageous address aroused not only the
satisfied applauses of the audience, but also a
great joy amongst the African journalists pre-
sent, who rushed to telephones and teleprinters
to “spread it out to the entire Africa”; to say it
with the closing expression of the address».

Paul VI, to be sure, reclaimed the independence of the Africans
and the end of all racial discriminations, as requirements of Justice
and Peace. And we find nothing wrong with that, save for the fact
that Paul required them in obedience to the International Institu-
tions. Now, this meant an unconditional submission to the decisions
of the UN, which, with its “democratic laws” (!!) not only places
the Law always on the side of their upheaval and claims, but also to
the benefit of the “Maquis” [Rural/mountain guerrilla bands of
Belgian and French anti-Nazi resistance in World War II; also of
Spanish resistance against Francisco Franco’s Fascist regime] of lib-
eration and of every other terrorist of color, as we can witness, even
today, in the Zaire, in Congo, and so on.

And so Paul Vi’s “anti-colonialism” was similar to that of the

223

UN, that is, of the great international Capitalism, of Communist im-
perialism, Russian and Chinese, and to that of the leftist intelli-
gentsia. Anti-colonialism, that is, of that “World” that loves, sup-
ports, justifies and arms the terrorists, the slaughterers of children
and women, the savages. And Paul VI received that “World” in
the Vatican.

For example: On July 1, 1970, he welcomed the three Leaders of
the terrorist Movements of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau
and Cape Verde. He admitted them to the hand kissing ceremony
[blessing] that followed the general audience.

In response to the surprise voiced by the media, the “Osservatore
Romano” promptly wrote: «... Any interpretation, of surprise or
endorsement, had no reason to be», since - explained the newspa-
per - «The Pope, for his mission, receives all those demanding the
comfort of his blessing... ». «And that was the case with the peo-
ple at issue... ». Yes, but, to start with, that was not a general audi-
ence in the strict sense of the word, nor were those “three” received
as Catholics, as they had been qualified, instead, in the request.

“La Croix” of July 9 wrote, however:

«It must be noted that Portugal... although
proclaiming itself a Catholic country, shies
away from the colonial policy and the repeated
teachings of the Pope as to Man’s rights and
Peoples’ rights. It is significant that Paul VI
had handed the three African leaders a copy of
the Encyclical “Populorum Progressio”... But
the audience of July 1 - pursues La Croix - has,
before the Portuguese government, the signifi-
cance of a warning: in fact, it signals to the Na-
tionalists that they are not considered impious,
excluded from the Christian community, and
that the Church does not approve of the colo-
nial order established in the “Portuguese terri-
tories”^

It was plainly an apparent neutralism on the part of Paul VI, a
neutralist departure from International Law and a tacit approval of
terrorism, active in those regions.

224

I lack, here, the space to piece back together the history of that
political about-turn from West to East of Paul Vi’s diplomacy, of his
unhurried and yet continuous rehabilitation of atheistic Marxism,
which went as so far as to authorize Catholic Christians to join the
Communist party, as, for example, by installing, in a Czechoslova-
kian Bishopric a President of the “Pacem in Terris” Association,
that is, an agent of Communism infiltrated into the Church 12 .

Certainly, Paul Vi’s fixed idea on Communism was still that
contained in the “Pacem in Terris”, namely, the distinction be-
tween historical movement (fixed) and ideology (in continuous
evolution) 13 ; hence he believed Communism could evolve and im-
prove, and for that reason he held out his arms to it, received its
emissaries, cooperated with it toward an alleged justice and peace
in the world. What a delusion!

But for that, Paul VI exposed himself to continuous scandals. As
in that “civil marriage”, in 1965, of Father Tondi, former collab-
orators of his at the office of Secretariate of State, who opted out of
priesthood in order to join Communism. Monsignor Montini ob-
tained for him an extraordinary dispensation of the religious
form 14 , quite unusual indeed - an exceptional service to his collab-
orator (his and Moscow’s) that aroused doubts as to its finality.

Another scandal, Paul VI made through Monsignor Glorieux,
who covered him when there was a “fraudulent removal of the
‘Petition’ of no less than 450 Bishops calling for the condemna-
tion of Communism from the Council, in September of 1965” 13 .
That scandal produced its effect. The Pope - they said - did not
want that the Council to condemn Communism; hence Commu-
nism is no longer condemned.

Now, all that was the consequence of his first Encyclical, the
“Ecclesiam Suam”, which opened up to dialogue, reconciliation,

12 Conference of Monsignor Matagrin, January 16, 1973, Mutualite; CRC 66,
p. 3; DC 73, 343.

13 DC 63, 541.

14 Canon 1138.

15 Comment of “Gaudium et Spes”, Unam Sanctam Collection, t. II, p. 120, n. 120.

225

and cooperation with Communism. An opening that was taking
shape, more and more boldly, in his social documents, oblivious of
the issue of the persecuted Christians, of their sufferings, of their
persecutions, so as not to stop or be hindered in his policy of rap-
prochement and cooperation with the Communist States.

The truth of the “facts” we have been narrating, however, dis-
pels any doubt. It will suffice to recall once more the forced trans-
fer of Cardinal Mindzenty, from “Primate” of Hungary to Rome.
It will suffice to recall once more the cry of Cardinal Slipyi, that
other Confessor of the Faith, that Soviet camps runaway whom, be-
fore the Synod, cried out his indignation to the traitors who cut
a peace treaty with the persecutors, oblivious of their faithful,
whom Soviet Communism persecuted and tortured:

«Out of 54 million Catholic Ukrainians - said he
- ten million have died as a consequence of per-
secutions. The Soviet regime has suppressed all
dioceses. There is a mountain of dead bodies
and there is no one left, not even in the Church,
to uphold their memory. Thousands of faithful
are still detained or deported. But the Vatican
Diplomacy (hence Paul VI) has chosen silence,
not to upset its dealings. The times of the cata-
combs are back. Thousands and thousands of
faithful of the Ukrainian Church are deported
to Siberia and as far north as the Polar Circle,
and yet the Vatican ignores this tragedy. Have
the martyrs, perhaps, become inconvenient wit-
nesses? Could we have become an albatross to
the Church?».

How tragic! The “Church of Silence” in such a state in order
not to upset the “Silence of the Church”. It was a crime, howev-
er, which condemns Paul Vi’s entire Secretary of State. Their
opening to Communism begot a world of declarations, intrigues,
occurrences that would make anyone who heard the thud of the
tombstones Paul VI caused to fall back upon the “witnesses”
that sacrificed their life to Christ, turn crimson. Like his secret
dealings with the then Secretary of the Italian Communist Party

226

(PCI), Enrico Berlinguer, who, for six years, was his diplomatic
agent for the Communist Government of Hanoi 16 .

When Paul VI decided to build a hospital in communist
North Vietnam, at war, because the United States bombarded it,
causing carnages, he showed, through that gesture, that his “neu-
tralism” was biased, invariably in the direction of Communism.

By now, Paul VI had become a driving belt of the Commu-
nist campaign “for Peace”, that is, for the elimination of the vari-
ous national armies, so that the Masonic UN could triumph, even
through the worldwide expansion of Communism.

Hence, his appeal to China, his joy at the announcement of
the “Cultural Revolution”, in spite of its plunders, its profana-
tions, its countless massacres.

We again recall, here, his address on the Epiphany of 1967:

«We would like the Chinese youth to know with
how much trepidation and affection we consid-
er the present exultation toward ideals of a new,
laborious, prosperous, and harmonious life. We
send out our support to China, so distant from
us geographically and yet so spiritually close...

And we would like to think of peace, with the
leaders of Continental China, aware as to how
this supreme human and civil ideal be inti-
mately congenial with the spirit of the Chinese
People» 17 .

Horrible and foolish words, which cannot hide his uncondition-
al pro-Communism.

16 Vatican Statement, February 21, 1973.

17 Address of January 6, 1967.

227

BUT PAUL VI DESECRATED FATIMA, TOO!

Before this inhuman anguish, it would have been Paul Vi’s duty
to perform a Pilgrimage to Fatima, and pray together with the
Catholic throng of traditional faith, to implore the Virgin Mary for
the mercy of God, and, consequently, for peace in this riotous world.
But that would not be the case. Paul VI did, to be sure, travel to
Fatima, on May 13, 1967, fifty years after the celestial Apparitions,
but he did not go there to see, but to be seen; not to hear the mes-
sage of the Virgin Mary, but to take the stage; not to kneel down,
but to dominate before an endless entreating crowd; not to receive
celestial commands, but to impose his earthly schemes; not to im-
plore the “peace” from the Holy Virgin, but to demand it of man,
but to impose, right there, in the domain of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, the “schemes” of the Masonic World of Manhattan; in a
word, to stay faithful to himself.

It was clear right from the outset. With a childish and impolite
pretext, he humiliated the President of Portugal, Salazar (one of the
most prestigious political Leaders of this century, and one of the
major authors of the Christian civilization); first by not taking the
time to meet him, at his office; then, by receiving him as any other
Portuguese citizen, without cortege, without photographers, without
any apparatus the President’s dignity would have required. And so,
by humiliating the Head of State, Paul VI humiliated Portugal - the
most faithful Country of Catholic faith - paying no consideration to
the Nation or to Her leader. Even the progressive press underscored
that act of contempt, flaunted, which Paul VI had toward that still
deeply Catholic people.

He then went on to celebrate, in the Portuguese language, a
hasty and cold Mass, impossible to follow, so much so that even
Laurentin defined it as “stammering”. It was noted, then, that his
speeches made but brief allusion to the Apparitions of 1917, and,
even these, were superficial and detached.

Concerned for his political and ecumenical chimeras, Paul VI
had organized a series of “audiences” that were to take up all of
his time; particularly, an “ecumenical meeting” with the “repre-
sentatives of the non-Catholic communities”. But the Lord hu-
miliated him. Of all the invited, only two showed up, Presbyterians,
with whom, he could only exchange a few meaningless words, as

228

they could not understand Paul Vi’s speech in the French language,
while so many good Catholics would have been more than willing
to pray and speak with him.

Moreover, having no wish to visit the places of the Apparitions,
at Cova da Iria, in spite of its proximity, he gave everyone the im-
pression he did not believe in them. But ever since his arrival at Fa-
tima, he had not found the time to salute, first, Our Lady of Fatima,
as he immediately climbed onto the platform, saluting the people.
He had passed before the Virgin Mary without as much as rais-
ing his eyes toward her; just as, afterwards, he declined to recite
the rosary with the crowd. Even the TV showed, and the newspa-
pers noted, that Paul VI had not even recited a “Hail Mary”!

Finally: the last of the seers, Sister Lucia, asked him, weeping,
for a few personal moments together alone; but Paul VI denied her
even that. His interpreter, Father Alueyda, in an interview to the
Vatican Radio, would recount: «Lucia expressed the wish to tell
the Pope something in person, but the Pope replied, “See, this is
not a good time. On the other hand, if you have something to tell
me, tell our Bishop and he will be sure to pass it on to me. Have
full confidence in him and obey our Bishop in everything”».

At this point the interpreter cut it short, saying, «And the Pope
blessed Sister Lucia as a father blesses a dear daughter whom,
perhaps, he may never see again».

Sure! Because there are even “graces” that will not be re-
peated.

At this juncture, I cannot avoid recalling that, six days earlier, on
May 7, Paul VI had found the time to meet with [Italian movie
stars] Claudia Cardinale and Gina Lollobrigida, at St. Peter, with
a completely different interest. And that ten days later, on May 17,
Paul VI had listened, with great attention, to the two Jewish women
Presidents of the covert organization of the “Temple of Under-
standing”.

But it was evident that it could not be otherwise, for a “Monti-
ni” that had betrayed Pope Pius XII in order to deal with Moscow,
and therefore, could not believe, even then, in the Apparitions of Fa-
tima, in the Apparitions of a Virgin Mary that did not come to terms
with Moscow, that is, unlike him, but rather urged the world to seek
conversion so as not to fall into the claws of that satanic Commu-
nism, led by Freemasonry!

229

And so the World, because of Paul Vi’s failings, continued to
roam the avenues of perdition, en route to punishment.

His silence and his manifest contempt of Fatima would beget no
other result than that of transforming into harsh realities the threats
of new “punishments” on the part of God, of a world by now slip-
ping, unchecked, into a rotting and bloody bog, and it would then be
the “Third World War”, which Freemasonry will unleash again
through Communism, persecutor and triumphant everywhere.
And it would be an atomic war, with its unfathomable devastations,
permitted by God on account of the iniquity that has by now
reached the rim, and of the ongoing “Great Apostasy”. And so the
peoples with Faith, shall also relinquish their life.

But then, why did Paul VI travel to Fatima? Was it perhaps to
substitute his Message for that of the “Queen of Peace”? This mes-
sage he manifested in Manhattan, at the UN, by demanding “Peace”
not of Heaven, but of Man’s heart, whom Paul VI entrusted it to?

In fact, appearing at the window of his Vatican apartment, on the
very night of his return from Fatima, he said:

«At Fatima, we have asked the Virgin Mary
about the avenues leading to peace, and it was
answered to us that peace will be achieved».

Quite brazen! As if to say that the Virgin Mary had encouraged
him to pursue his “Great Design” of leading all men to building

peace not through “Prayer” and “Penance”, but through the
doctrine of the “Populorum Progressio”, namely, “Progress and
Peace”.

But that would be tantamount to attributing to Heaven his “Mes-
sage”, recited at Manhattan, that “Peace” is possible because men
are good; nay, that “Peace” is the work of men, all men, fruit of
their converging efforts under the world leadership of the Jewish-
Masonic Organizations.

It is no use attempting to explain his “Message”. It is sufficient
to read again his “Prayer”, not to God but to man, with which he
wrapped up his journey to Fatima:

«Men, do endeavor to be worthy of the divine
gift of peace! Men, be men (sic)!

230

Men, be good, be wise, be open to the consider-
ation of the total good of the world!

Men, be magnanimous!

Men, get closer to one another again, with the
idea of building a new world!

Yes, the world of the true men, which will nev-
er be such without the sun of God on its hori-
zon!^

A delirious speech, which we do not approve of, for we believe
that Our Lady of Fatima shall again be the Virgin Mary that will
crush the head of the serpent- Satan. For we believe in her calls to
“Prayer” and “Penance”. For we believe we must intensify the
recitation of the “Rosary for Peace”. For we believe in the “Con-
secration of the World to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin
Mary”, which Peace depends upon, for God has entrusted it to her,
in order that, at the end of this disastrous and Satanic turn to the
left, “Her Immaculate Heart” may triumph over the World
turned Christian again.

231

COMMUNISM AND MASONRY

- In 1848, Karl Schapper, Joseph Moll and Heinrich Bauer, the Illumi-
nati who ran the “League of Righteous Men”, decided to change the
name to “Communist League” of which Karl Marx became a member.
They asked Marx to codify the program of Weishaupt, the founder of
the “Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria” of which the “League of
Righteous Men” was merely an offshoot. Thus, the “Communist Man-
ifesto” appeared, through Marx who received substantial help from two
“Illuminati” Clinton Roosevelt and Horace Greeley.

The “Order of the Illuminati” is the visible root of the link between
“Worldwide Communism” and “Worldwide Masonry”, while their
deeper root lies in the common origin of the thought of the Rosicru-
cians!

Communism’s, Marx conceived purpose is to create a completely cen-
tralized dictatorship and submissive to the authority of the state,
encompassing the entire world; while the essential purpose of the Rosi-
crucians is the establishment of a dictatorial form of World Govern-
ment, with the emphasis on material progress, as a first step chronolog-
ically both East and West. The two worlds have basically the same ob-
jective, apart from some variations. Their enemies, therefore, are com-
mon enemies; Man made in God’s image, thereby ensuring his free-
dom, the Roman Catholic Church, which maintains the “Decalogue”
and “The Rights of Man” when these are considered as the counterpart
of the “duties” that the creature has toward his Creator!

- «The root for man is man himself ... The criticism of religious doc-
trine concludes that, for man, The Supreme Being is Man».

- «We want to get rid of all that is supernatural, so we declared war
once and for all on religion». (Karl Marx)

- «A11 religious ideas are crazy! God is a monstrous corpse. Faith in
God is a monstrous cowardice». (Lenin)

- «No neutrality in the face of religion. Against the propagators of
religious nonsense, the Communist Party can only continue the

war». (Stalin)

232

233

Our Lady and Child, defaced by the godless fury of the Communists in Spain - Barcelona,
October 1934.

234

Above: The map, based on
“Prisons and Concentra-
tion Camps of the Soviet
Union”, draws the gulag
archipelago in the USSR.
The Soviet penal institutions
known until the beginning of
1980 (1976 camps, 273
prisons and 85 psychiatric
prisons) are shown, each
with a point. The numbering
identifies zones, regions and
republics of the USSR.

Left: Paul VI receives the
President of the Communist
Republic of Czechoslovakia,
Janor Kadar, the persecutor
of Card. Joseph Mindszen-

ty-

235

Une tragique clameur

THE BtVlNArfT. ‘‘Jet 11. ***<

l_E CARDINAL UKRAiN IEN SLIP VI
ATTAQUE L'ATTITUDEl
DIPLOMATIQUE DU VATICAN

Cite dli V'll'PHh [NCj IJ'i
■!-i«cl UL'ji.iini c*ile ii iMhltllNi n
rivnc *-:u le 'iitamLhameli: flu r
y in inaq 8i:s- nnui ^ ~

r^L . *«n. Li
:\

mil „ jh E.nly r,u * r

I, fi pfto p - 1 *! . rti CI 4 HW® “ L
,. . 0 .« lE TnU^ V‘* LW "- 1 "

\ SSS^'iTStl

ft > I

'!■■ P| JVM p '

,|nM l " ^ nrw

n.-n it -H- «£.T. «- I'^C i

Rome

r IK-FO^MAUPMS CMHOLlOUEilNTEflMMIttf.ftllS. I WflftS S-3B»

( A L’ECOUTE DE L 1 EG LISE A L f EST

CnmNrnlHl-rd*-

ratranot! aU iinvm

no C(iJf«|.-i<tME DF PM LA VD
LEWIE DF HOME

U IT P*ilf HHU 1 l,L II. i j,b|r till
ijr.inirn rl-m-r# pflnir Iqi kimi-
pnuniilih. C-p JiHirlA. le S.i*in
^.rnc BFifiMiuvDit olliiii ll-nmenj
pnr Ij ilquatiirc iln Mgr CiiHi-o-
FJ, li» «iiii#ike^ du .jiUNtniin.
men! Cainmuil«ln ■ li- H.~i|«jni'
tJomnmdjnt unit i*ijrrt*s dn iwyl
da fitdEii* Afirtrif-.ru ita linlrliLc
Ukl rrj.jllni^ qHinimi HMD;.: IklCdl
Cfl-ll* indTirrublr Lrulm-ofi III
•sillier Ip i iiiip.il L'jrnmunftihi
rlal'E-i -L'Un-ln- ii-.ii i i: i i-i it. In
lb n^iltndirc 1954 . -L« a, i ml.
Siege i'u« Incline rlj v.m \ U
Fil^illP IrrCvErillllti. Ln Kiinyrl-
raft la jiremiftr (ih p-n cjifflni untile
ftiicomiu Fi.ir Ip Silnt-SFegn .
L'alUliiJn Lh Mipfiiir fifty rift nf-
Iriiirl I. -i- i-ni |I rsai-wie c Lei

I'lfi I|rmi k-i:n; ||iplpr Acrinarit a
In nnni-lhiirjDn nnirirmjnl'S.iR Aij.
ik Li Nr In J lar-grta. t'acoard -
une impnj|iiiii.(! ftnlernaelofMle.*

• La Ooiitiif. ILL f-rtvj>E:r 1-3T4

i/lindszenty
on archeveche
et son litre
de primal

Above: On January 1, 1977: second
meeting between Paul VI and the Mayor
of Rome, Argan. A slow march on the
path of “historic compromise” with
Communism.

Left: Paul VI receives the Communist
President of Yugoslavia, Marshal Tito,
at the Vatican.

237

'fjpfUfffl

aaef-a

I L« (nrdirvol PAovtlla

rrmtrdt Khroutfoteh(*

; L '* U * M ' - Z — “ ■

U ’ ww« secret dc [> ail l yj
ncUocrer m[x u v& -

JL A CAIUJfi LONGUEMENT LA
main t)tf DELficuE soviErrorn

IlidnEfiijEl- ::vim71;

Lilian SA1VAN

1 -|l|i Vul'l 111 I F Ml L

J mr . ,„ ,, — Lb mkiifh|tir p

™3 L«^S'X *'

Wfe f pfnpii-a 1 1 r- i Hll - u. n ■t , niyn i i I L « nr

«" jj " 1'%^ FHHl _ :

flUlIlt N ml, L „ , * X| 11 H> ' DM* i

, “'t ^""Hu

zcuijrjh.^ -j.^-j M r : t EffpTpj

* 4 Le Pape parle
a clroite.
mats il

a gil a gauche
fit ce soul
los actions
qui coinplenl / 1

pfrre *- c °nS3n o,p.

□railcf ijJmJrqtEuT rfp p au |i y-j

“ n

«The mystery of the most Holy Eucharist
which Christ, the High Priest instituted,
and which He commands
to be continually renewed in the Church
by His ministers,
is the culmination and center,
as it were, of the Christian religion».

(Pius XII, MD 66)

240

CHAPTER VIII

HIS “ECUMENICAL MASS”

The debate is still open as to whether Paul VI had the authority
to change the Catholic “Mass” in a way that would make it am-
biguous, equivocal and of a Protestant content.

The fact is, Pius V’s “Bull”, “Quo Primum”, still stands with all
its weight and authority. I shall stay, here, within the core of the issue.

Namely: could Paul VI change the “texts” of the Mass? He
certainly could, as a Pope, had disciplinary questions been at issue,
but, because of its dogmatic nature, the faithful fulfillment of the
Holy Sacrifice” of the Mass, in keeping with the Will of Jesus
Christ and in line with the traditional teaching, multi-secular,
given to us by the Church, Paul VI could not do it, having no
“right” to “change” as much as a hair of the “Depositum Fidei”.

Hence Paul VI was free to change some “prayers”, but he could
not introduce anything into the Mass that might alter the Catholic
doctrine, and, therefore, the traditional Catholic Faith.

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had ruled, already:

«The consecratory formula of the “Roman
Canon” had been imposed to the Apostles by
Christ directly, and handed down by the Apos-
tles to their successors».

241

And the Florentine Council (Session of the year 1442), in its
“Decree for the Greeks and the Armenians”, had solemnly reiter-
ated and confirmed the same dogmatic doctrine of Tradition, as wit-
nessed by Innocent III. Thus the “historical fact”, incontrovertible,
clearly demonstrates that

«The celebration of the Holy Eucharistic Sacri-
fice of the Mass, and, therefore, even the for-
mulation of the “consecration”, preceded the
appearance of all of the Scriptural texts of the
New Testament by at least two decades».

It is consequently censurable that, after the Church had been
using for nearly two millennia, continuously (and without a sin-
gle dispute), the formula of the pre-conciliar “Roman Canon”, it
should be necessary to revise it and modify it, particularly the “for-
mula of the Eucharistic Consecration, willed by Christ”... ever
since the onset of the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel.

Now, Paul VI, having abolished the Eucharistic consecratory
formula of the “Roman Canon” (which, as Innocent III and the
Florentine Council had taught, was instituted by Christ and had al-
ways been used by the Roman Catholic Church), he replaced it
with his own formula (which, therefore, is no longer that institut-
ed by Christ), even making it mandatory, as of November 30,
1969, having introduced it in the “Missale Romanum Apostolic
Constitution” of April 3, 1969.

And yet, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Pius XII (the Pope of the “Me-
diator Dei”), John XXIII and Paul VI, himself, up until November
30, 1969, had consecrated the Blessed Eucharist with the bi-millen-
nial formula of the “Roman Canon”, with assurance, with com-
passion, with faith, in the Latin language, with subdued voice, fol-
lowing Canon IX of Session XXIII of the Council of Trent.

And thus Paul VI, with his reform of the Mass, disregarded
the teaching of the Vatican I Council, which reads, verbatim:

«Nor to the successors of Peter was promised
the Holy Spirit in order that that, by means of
His revelation, they would manifest a new doc-
trine, but on the contrary, in order that through

242

His assistance, they would holily keep and
faithfully expound the Revelation, taught
through the Apostles, namely, the “Deposit of
the Faith. ”»! (Pastor Aeternus July 8, 1870)

Moreover, Paul VI disregarded also Pius IX’s teaching
(against the “Declaratio Episcoporum Germaniae” of January-
February 1875), which reads as follows:

«... Finally, the opinion that the Pope, by virtue
of his infallibility, be supreme sovereign, sup-
poses a concept at all erroneous of the dogma of
the Papal infallibility. As the (First) Vatican
Council, with unambiguous and explicit words,
has enunciated, and as it appears in its face
from the nature of things, that (infallibility) is
restricted to the prerogative of the Papal
Supreme Magisterium: that coincides with the
domain of the infallible Magisterium of the
Church Herself, and it is bound to the doctrine
contained in the Scriptures and Tradition, as
well as to the (dogmatic) Definitions already
pronounced by the ecclesiastical Magisteri-
um... Hence, as regards the affaires of the gov-
ernment of the Pope, nothing has been changed
in an absolute way» 1 2 .

In addition: Paul VI, having disregarded the two aforemen-
tioned “documents” of the Supreme Magisterium, went as far as
tampering with the “Eucharistic Consecratory Formula”, estab-
lished by Christ in person, insinuating, almost, to the entire
Church, that that formula contained something that needed fixing,
violating, in this manner, also Canon VI of the Council of Trent,
which sanctioned:

1 Denzinger, n. marg. 3070.

2 Denzinger, n. marg. 3116.

243

«SI QUIS DIXERIT CANONEM MISSAE CON-
TINERE ERRORES, IDEOQUE ABROGAN-
DUM ESSE, ANATHEMA SIT».

[If anyone will have said that the Canon of the
Mass contains errors, and must therefore be abro-
gated, let him be anathema.]

Now, having intentionally abolished that Canon’s consecratory
formula, replacing it with another, confusing or misleading and mul-
tipurpose, in order to please the Protestants, should Paul VI be list-
ed, too, under that “excommunication” of the Council of Trent?

In any case, even Cardinal Ratzinger, in his autobiography, “My
Life”, makes mention of the

«... Tragic error was committed by Paul VI
with the prohibition of the use of Pius V’s
Missal and the approval of the “new” Missal,
which would break away from the liturgical
tradition of the Church» 3 .

And he pursued 4 :

«... I was astonished for the prohibition of the
ancient Missal, since such a thing had never oc-
curred in the entire history of liturgy. The im-
pression was given that there was nothing to it.

Pius V had established the previous Missal in
1570, in adherence to the Council of Trent; and
thus it was normal that, when four hundred
years and a new Council had come to pass, a
new Pope would publish a new missal. But the
historical truth is quite another. Pius V had
limited himself to re-elaborate the Roman
Missal then in use, as it had always been the
case in the living course of history. Like him,

3 Joseph Ratzinger, “My Life”, p. 105-115.

4 As above, p. 111-112.

244

several of his successors had re-elaborated that
missal, without ever placing a missal in conflict
with another. It was always a dynamic process
of historical growth and purification in which
however the continuity was never severed. A
missal of Pius V, created by him, does not exist.

There is only the re-elaboration he ordered, as
a stage of a long process of historical growth.

The new, after the Council of Trent, took on a
different nature: the storm of the Protestant
Reformation had taken place, above all, in the
modality of the liturgical “reforms” (...) so
much so that the boundaries between what was
still Catholic, and what Catholic was no longer,
were hard to delineate. In that confused situa-
tion, made possible by the lack of a unitary
liturgical normative and by the liturgical plu-
ralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the
Pope decided that the “Roman Missal”, the
liturgical text of the city of Rome, being posi-
tively Catholic, must be introduced wherever
no reference to a liturgy that would not be at
least two hundred years old could be made.
Wherever such a liturgy was at hand, the pre-
vious liturgy could be maintained, given that its
Catholic character could be deemed safe».

And so, all St. Pius V did was to extend to the entire West the
traditional Roman Mass, as a barrier against Protestantism.
Paul VI, on the contrary, abolished the “Traditional Roman
Rite” since his “pastoral” aims were not for the Catholics, as it
should have been, but for the Protestants. And in that way, his
“Novus Ordo” was but a “remarkable departure from the
Catholic theology of the Holy Mass” (see Cardinal Ottaviani and
Bacci in their “Brief Critical Review” 5 . The confirmation of that

5 In the “Brief Critical Review”, a study made by a group of capable theolo-

245

came even from the “Osservatore Romano” (October 13, 1967), in
which it was announced that “The liturgical reform has taken a
remarkable step forward (sic) and has come closer to the litur-
gical forms of the Lutheran Church”.

A liturgical turn, therefore, but one that has all the flavor of a be-
trayal of the Faith. While St. Pius V retained the traditional “Ro-
man Rite”, “as surely Catholic”, Paul VI, on the contrary, abol-
ished the “Traditional Roman Rite” precisely because its was
Catholic, in order to bring about his “new Missal”, positively
“protestantized”, as one can easily prove.

The Catholic Faith, in fact, with respect to the Holy Mass, has
always taught us that She is “the bloodless renewal of the Sacri-
fice of Calvary”, and that, after the “Consecration”, the bread and
the wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of Our
Lord Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, “Protestantism” does not believe at all in
the “renewal” of the sacrifice of Calvary, nor does it believe in
the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and that is why in
their churches, when they break the bread and drink the wine, they
do it only to “commemorate” the Last Supper. They perform,
that is, a mere “memorial”.

There is, therefore, an essential difference between the Catholic
conception and the Protestant one as to the “Eucharistic celebra-
tion”. That said, one may ask oneself: How is it that today, after
Paul Vi’s “reformation” of the Mass, the Protestants say they can
accept the Catholic Mass, whereas, before, they would not accept at
all that of Pius V? Is it perhaps that the Protestants have embraced
the Catholic Faith? Or is it rather because Paul Vi’s Mass has
“embraced” Lutheran thinking?

Let us hear from the Protestants themselves.

Roger Mehl, Protestant theologian, in an article on “Le
Monde” of September 10, 1970, wrote:

gians, then submitted to Paul VI by the Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani, it is said:

«The “Nuovo Ordo Missae”, if the new elements are considered... does away
in a remarkable manner, both in the whole and in the details, from the
Catholic theology of the Holy Mass».

246

«If the decisive evolution of the Eucharistic
Liturgy in substitution of the (traditional)

Canon of the Mass, the removal of the idea that
the Mass is a Sacrifice, and the possibility of re-
ceiving Communion under the two species, are
taken into account, then there is no longer any
justification, for the reformed Church, to bar
their members from attending the Eucharist in
a Catholic Church».

More incisive it is the statement of Doctor J. Moorman, Protes-
tant bishop of Ripon, and Anglican “observer” at the Vatican II,

whom, not without a hint of irony, wrote:

«Reading the scheme on Liturgy and listening
to the debate thereof, I could not help but think
that, if the Church of Rome continued to im-
prove the Missal and the Breviary for a long
enough while yet, one day, she would come up
with the “Book of Common Prayer”» 6 .

Another, a British Anglican bishop adopting throughout his dio-
cese the new Catholic rite, had this to say:

«This new rite is perfectly in keeping with our
Protestant ideas».

The French Catholic writer Louis Salleron, in a work, asked the
fathers of Taize: «Why are you saying that today you can adopt
the new rite and not the ancient one?».

Lratel Roger Schutz, superior of the community of Taize,

6 Thomas Cranmer was the Anglican reformer bishop who, under Henry VIII,
among his works, also wrote, in 1549, the “Book of Common Prayer”. He chal-
lenged, above all, the Catholic doctrine of the “Transubstantiation”, of the “Re-
al Presence”, of the “Sacrifice” of the Altar, reducing the Mass, in concurrence
with Luther, into a mere historical “commemoration”.

247

replied, because “the notion of sacrifice is nowhere clearly af-
firmed” 7 .

Even the Superior Consistory of the (Protestant) Church of
the Denomination of Augsburg of Alsace and Lorena, after the
assembly of Strasbourg of December 8, 1973, stated:

«We estimate that, in the present circum-
stances, the loyalty to the Gospel and to our
Tradition no longer affords us to oppose the
participation of the faithful of our Church to a
Catholic Eucharistic celebration... The present
forms of the Eucharistic celebration in the
Catholic Church having been the reason of the
present theological convergences, many obsta-
cles that could have kept a Protestant from par-
ticipating in Her Eucharistic celebration, seem
on their way to extinction. It should be possible,
today, for a Protestant, to recognize, in the Eu-
charistic celebration, the Supper instituted by
the Lord» 8 .

Then, the Consistory pointed out:

«We are keen on the utilization of new Eu-
charistic prayers in which we find ourselves
(such as those prayers introduced by Paul VI),
and which have the advantage of shading off
the theology of the sacrifice, which we normal-
ly attribute to Catholicism. These prayers in-
vite us to re-trace an evangelical theology of the
sacrifice... » 9 .

That language means that even our theology on Paul Vi’s Mass

7 “World Trends”, Australia, June 1973, n. 34, p. 3.

8 “Dernieres Nouvelles d’Alsace”, December 14, 1973, n. 289.

9 Idem.

248

has become a theology conformant to the Protestant doctrine. These
are affirmations that call for reflection.

Sure, our faithful do not perceive that “Protestant flavor” in
Paul Vi’s “new Mass”, wherein the “texts” have equivocal ex-
pressions, which give way to various interpretations, and wherein
“suppressions” and “omissions” have been made of certain fun-
damental aspects of the dogma, but there are reasons to believe,
nonetheless, that those suppressions and omissions have been cer-
tainly voluntary and calculated by the editors of the texts.

In fact, not by chance did Paul VI include in the “Consilium”,
entrusted with the liturgical reform, six Protestant members, in
representation of the “World Council of the Churches”, namely,
the Church of England, the Lutheran Church and the Protes-
tant Community of Taize 10 .

And that justifies the grave affirmation of Cardinals Ottaviani
and Bacci, whom, in their “Brief Critical Review of the Novus
Ordo Missae”, drafted in collaboration with a group of selected
theologians, declared that the “New Mass” “departs in a remark-
able manner, both in the whole and in details, from the Catholic
theology of the Holy Mass”.

We single out, therefore, here, some material parts of Paul Vi’s
Mass, containing grave errors. Let us begin with the definition of
“Mass”, such as it was presented in paragraph 7, at the outset of
Chapter 2 of the “Novus Ordo”: “De Structura Missae”:

«Cena dominica, sive Missa, est sacra synaxis
seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenien-
tis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini
celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali
congregatione eminenter valet promissio
Christi: “Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in

10 Here are the names of those six Protestant members that collaborated in the
drafting of the “Novus Ordo Missae”: Georges, Jasper, Sephard, Konnet, Smith
and Thurian. Among these, two Anglicans (one Briton, one American), a mem-
ber of the “Lutheran World Council”, another, member of the “World Council
of the Churches”, and two more Lutheran of Taize.

249

nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum” n » 12 .

[The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assem-
bly or congregation of the people of God gather-
ing together, with a priest presiding, in order to
celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason
Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local
gathering together of the Church: “Where two or
three come together in my name, there am I in
their midst] .

As one can see, the definition of “Mass” is limited to a “sup-
per” which is then continuously repeated 12 . A “supper”, that is,
characterized by the assembly, chaired by a cleric, in which a
simple “memorial” of the Lord is performed, recalling what He
did on Holy Thursday.

Now, all this does not imply either the “Real Presence”, or
the “reality of the Sacrifice”, or the “sacramentality” of the con-
secrating priest, or the “intrinsic value” of the Eucharistic sac-
rifice, independently of the presence of the assembly. In a nutshell,
it does not imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass,
which constitute, therefore, her true definition.

Hence the voluntary omission is tantamount to their “super-
sedence”, and, at least in practice, to their denial 14 .

The second part, then, of that definition, namely that the
Mass realizes “eminently” the promise of Christ, “There, where
two or three... I am in their midst”, creates an ambiguity, since
that “promise of Christ” regards only, formally, a spiritual pres-
ence of Christ, by virtue of His Grace, but it does not regard at

11 Matthew 18, 20.

12 Translation: “The Sunday supper, or Mass, is the holy synapse (Religious As-
sembly) or gathering of the people of God, under the presidency of the priest, to
celebrate the memorial of the Lord. That is why the promise of Christ carries a
value, in an eminent way, to the assembly: “When two or three are gathered in my
name, there am I in midst of them” (Matthew 18, 20)”.

13 “Novus Ordo Missae”, n. 8, 48, 55d, 56.

14 “Brief Critical Review”, p. 5. It goes without saying that even if one single
dogma were to be negated, there would collapse, ipso facto, all the dogmas, since

250

all the “Real Presence”, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, such as
it is found, instead, in the Holy Eucharist. Thus binding that
“promise” of Christ’s to the Mass would signify that the Mass
realizes only a “spiritual presence” of Christ, and not the real
and sacramental one.

It would be enough to say that the definition of Mass of Paul
Vi’s “Novus Ordo” was “ heretical”. (And Paul VI, then?). How-
ever, after reading that “Brief Critical Review” of the two cardi-
nals, he had that “paragraph 7” amended 15 , if only in part, as the
“text of the Mass” has remained as it was. Not a word has been
changed.

With that “canny” reparation, the “errors” of that paragraph
would seem to have been fixed. Would seem. Not so! The “Mass”
is a “supper”, just as before; the “sacrifice” is but a “memorial”,
just as before; the “presence of Christ in the two species” is qual-
itatively equal to His presence in the assembly, in the priest and
in the Scriptures. The laity will not perceive the subtle distinction
of the “Sacrifice of the altar”, called, now, “enduring”, but that
was the “mens” [mind] of the editors, as Rahner explained in his
comment to the “Sacrosanctum Concilium” art. 47:

«Art. 47 contains - it was already in the Coun-
cil - a theological description of the Eucharist.

Two elements are worthy of attention: it is said
to let “endure” the sacrifice of Christ, whereas
the expressions “REPRAESENTATIO” (Coun-
cil of Trent) and “RENOVATIO” (more recent
Papal texts) have been deliberately left out. The
Eucharistic celebration is characterized by a
word, taken from the recent Protestant discus-

the very principle of the infallibility of the supreme solemn Hierarchical Magis-
terium, whether it be Papal or conciliar, would collapse.

15 The new text sounds as follows: «In the Mass, or “Cena Dominica”, the peo-
ple of God are gathered to celebrate, under the presidency of the priest, act-
ing “in persona Cristi”, the memorial or Eucharistic Sacrifice. Of this local
assembly stands, in an eminent way, the promise of Christ: “When two or
three are gathered in my name, there am I in midst of them”».

251

sion, namely, “memorial of the death and res-
urrection of Jesus”».

Now, is that not a departure from the bloodless renewal of the
Sacrifice of the Calvary? In fact, according to this “new defini-
tion”, the sacrifice of Christ would have taken place only once and
for all, and would be enduring in its effect. But that is the doctrine
of Luther! If the “Sacrifice” is a mere “memorial”, in which the
effect of the only sacrifice endures, then Christ is only present
spiritually; and that diminishes Him, even though the expression
“in persona Christi” has been introduced, and the “Real Pres-
ence” is only symbolized in the two species.

Proof of this can be had also in the declarations of the German
theologians, such as Langerlin, collaborator of J. A. Jungmann, and
Johannes Wagner, whom, speaking in fact of the “new version” of
paragraph (7), say:

«In spite of the new version, granted, in 1970,
to the militant reactionaries (that would be Car-
dinals Ottaviani and Bacci... and us), and not dis-
astrous nonetheless (!!), thanks to the ability of
the editors, the new theology of the Mass also
avoids the cul-de-sac of the post-Tridentine the-
ories of Sacrifice, and corresponds for all time
to certain inter-confessional documents of re-
cent years» 16 .

That would mean that even the current cult is still crippled.

And so, “quid dicendum” of Paul VI? Are we not, perhaps,
confronted with a “fact” that is unprecedented throughout the his-
tory of the Roman Pontificate?

It is appropriate, therefore, to recall once more that one must
not confuse the jurisdictional prerogatives of the Supreme Apos-
tolic Authority, which include, to be sure, the legislative freedom

of every Pontiff, whereas others are marked by impassable limits,

16 From the book: “Tradition and Progress”, published at Graz.

252

to any Pontiff, until the end of time. Namely, the Pope has no con-
straints when acting in the area of “discipline”, so long as his ac-
tion did not involve the substance and security from any conta-
mination of error of any “De Fide” dogma, as this is “ex sese ir-
reformabile” 17 .

«Neque enim FIDEI DOCTRINA, quam Deus
revelavit... velut “Philosophicum Inventum”,
proposita est humanis ingentis perficienda (!)...
sed tamquam DIVINUM DEPOSITUM
CHRISTI... Sponsae tradita, fideliter custodienda
et infallibiliter declaranda...» 18 .

[For the doctrine of Faith, which God revealed,
has not been handed down as a philosophical in-
vention, to the human mind to be perfected but has
been entrusted as a Divine Deposit to the Spouse
of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly
interpreted... - Denz. 1800]

It is thus evident that St. Pius V knew what he was saying when
he mapped out a limit, impassable “in perpetuo”, even by all of
his successors. His “QUO PRIMUM” Constitution did not have for
an object a disciplinary issue, subject to a Pastoral Government,
which might even be changed in accordance with the times, but his
Constitution had for an object a definitive Codification of that
which had been, ever since Apostolic Times, the dogmatic sub-
stance, immune from doctrinal errors, of the Mass; as EU-
CHARISTIC SACRIFICE (and not “Supper”!) and as CELEBRA-
TION, which is not at all, by its own nature, “COLLECTIVE” (as
provided for, instead, in art. 14 of the “INSTITUTIO GENER-
ALIS”, after the Vatican II), but only MINISTERIAL CELEBRA-
TION OF SACRAMENTAL PRIESTHOOD!

17 Vatican I Council, Session IV, “De Romani Ponteficis Infallibili Magiste-
rio”, Dogmatic definition, Denz. n. marg. 1839; marg. est. 3074.

18 Vatican I Council, Session III, “De Fide Catholica” Constitution - Denz. n.

marg. est. 3020; marg. int. 1800.

253

In fact, that “participation of the people in the rite” has nev-
er meant (in twenty centuries of doctrine of the Church) a “Right
of the People” to actively participate in the Mass (as the rite it-
self would be invalid), but only “concession”, on the part of the
teaching Church, to participate, through dialogue, to some por-
tions and prayers, of merely ceremonial value, but not to those
bearing an “official” and “Consecratory” value, sole prerogative
of the priest, validly consecrated, “conditio sine qua non” to the
“Sacrificii Eucharistici” (Eucharistic Sacrifice)...

For these “dogmatic reasons”, Pope St. Pius V, in his “QUO
PRIMUM” Constitution, concludes with these solemn words:

«Nulli ergo, omnino “hominum” (and thus all,
including his successors) liceat hanc paginam
Nostrae PERMISSIONS, STATUTIS, ORDINA-
TIONS, MANDATI, PRAECEPTI, DECRETI et
INHIBITIONS... INFRINGERE... vel Ei... ausu
temerario... contraire (!)... Si quis autem Hoc At-
tentare Praesumpserit... INDIGNATIONEM OM-
NIPOTENTIS DEI ac Beatorum PETRI et PAULI,
Apostolorum Eius... SE NOVERIT INCURSU-
RUM...».

[Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to
infringe or rashly contravene this notice of our
permission, statute, ordinance, command, direc-
tion, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and
prohibition. Should any person venture to do so,
let him understand that he will incur the wrath of
Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter
and Paul.]

Did Paul VI, perhaps, ignore all that?

It is opportune, therefore, that I also underscore a fundamental
point of the Mass, perhaps the most injured in that Mass of Paul
VI’ s: the Essence of the Sacrifice.

a) The “Real Presence”

While in the “Suscipe” of the Mass of St. Pius V the “aim” of
the offering was explicitated, here, in Paul Vi’s new Mass no men-

254

tion is made of it. Hence one can say that the change in the formu-
lation reveals a doctrinal change. In other words: the non-explici-
tation of the Sacrifice is tantamount to the suppression of the
central role of the “Real Presence”. In fact, that “Real and per-
manent Presence” of Christ, in Body, Soul and Divinity, is nev-
er alluded to. The very word “transubstantiation” is completely
ignored.

b) The “Consecratory Formulas”

The ancient formula of the Consecration was not a “narra-
tive” one - as it is, instead, that of the “new Mass” - but it was a
sacramental formula in the strict sense of the word. On the con-
trary, the “new consecratory formulas” are uttered by the priest as
if they were an “historical narration”, not as expressing a categor-
ical and affirmative judgment, offered by He in whose Person He is
acting: “Hoc est Corpus meum”; and not: “Hoc est Corpus
Christi”. Hence the words of the Consecration, such as are intro-
duced into the context of the “Novus Ordo”, may be valid only by
virtue of the minister’s intention, but may also be invalid, since they
are no longer valid “ex vi verborum”, and that is, by virtue of the
“modus significandi” they had until yesterday, in Paul Vi’s Mass.

In addition, Paul VI gave the language of the Universal Church 19
(against the will expressed by the Vatican II itself) the final blow,
with the “Sacrosantum Concilium” “Apostolic Constitution”,
which states: “in tot varietate linguarum una (?) eademque cunc-
torum praecatio... quo vis ture fragrantior ascendat”. [in such
a variety of tongues one and the same prayer of all... may rise
more fragrant than incense]. So he did the same with “Gregori-
an Chant”, even though Vatican II had it acknowledged as being
“liturgiae romanae proprium” 20 , (proper to the Roman Liturgy)
ordering that “principem locum obtineat .” 21 [it holds first place].

19 “Sacrosantum Concilium” Constitutions, art. 36, art. 54.

20 Sacr. Cone. n. 116. “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”, September 9, 1968, p. 536 and
subsequent.

21 Art. 36: «Linguae latinae usus in ritibus latinis servetur» (The use of the Latin

255

And so the “new rite”, pluralistic and experimental, would be
bound to times and places; but in that way, not only the “unity of
cult” has been severed, but also the “unity of Faith”.

At this juncture, we may positively conclude that a real differ-
ence exists between the “new rite” and the “ancient” one, a real
substantial difference. In fact, there cannot be but an accidental
difference if the Protestants, today, are ready to participate in the
“new rite” while they still steer clear of the old one, which truly il-
luminates the aim of the “Sacrifice”, Propitiatory, Expiatory, Eu-
charistic and Latreutic, whereas, in such a clear manner, it no
longer exists in the “new rite”, in which even the Offertory has
been lost. Just as Luther did, when along with the Offertory, he
suppressed the Elevation, eliminating, in this way, any notion of
“Sacrifice”.

Even the “modifications” of the Consecration brought about
in the “Novus Ordo”, are similar to those introduced by Luther.

The essential words of the Consecration, in fact, are no longer mere-
ly the words of the form that was previously in use: “Hoc est Cor-
pus meum”, and: “Hie est calix Sanguinis mei”, but in the “New

language be retained in the Latin rites).

Art. 54: «Provideatur... ut christifideles etiam lingua latina partes Ordinarii
Missae quae ad ipsos spectant possint simul dicere vel cantare». (One must
ensure... that the faithful know how to recite and chant, also in the Latin language,
the ordinary parts of the Mass pertaining to them).

In the “Costitutio de Sacra Liturgia”, at Chapter VI, dedicated to the Chanting
of the “Sacred Music”, it is said: «The Church acknowledges the Gregorian
Chant as the chant proper to the Roman Liturgy, thus claiming for it a central
place in the liturgical acts...».

In the “Holy Congregation for the Rites” “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” (of Sep-
tember 9, 1968, p. 536 and subsequent), it is said: «In quavis Basilica, pro op-
portunitate, diebus praesertium festivis, una alteravae missa, sive lecta sive in
cantu, lingua latina celebrantur. In eiusmodi missis cantatis, gregorianae melo-
diae vel sacra poliphonia peculiari cura et studio proferantur». (In all of the
Basilicas, as opportunities allow, especially on holidays, one or more masses, read
or chanted, are to be celebrated in the Latin language. In such masses, when
chanted, Gregorian tunes, or holy poliphony, are to be performed with particu-
lar care and love). Etc.

256

Mass” of Paul VI, the essential words begin with: “He took the
bread...” until after the Consecration of the wine: “Hoc facite in
meam commemorationem”; just as Luther did! And that because
the “narration” of the Supper has to be read, which is, in point of
fact, but “a narration, and not a sacrificial action, hence not a
Sacrifice, but a mere “memorial”.

Now, why in the world did Paul VI let Luther be copied so sub-
missively? The only explanation one might venture, I believe, is
that of ecumenism, that is, toward a more resolute rapprochement
with the Protestants. And with that in mind, Paul VI invited the
Protestants to be part of the “Commission for the Liturgical Re-
form”. But how was it possible that some Protestants could be in-
vited - who do not share our same Faith - to participate in a
Commission for the “Reformation of the Catholic Mass”? Was it
that Paul VI, perhaps, with his obsession for “universal brother-
hood”, for the sake of unity at any costs, had wanted, with that
“Mass of His”, cause the “frontiers” separating the Catholics from
the Protestants to crumble to the ground? If that was the case, then
his was a capital error, nay, a blatant betrayal of the Catholic
Faith. The true Christian unity, in fact, is realized only in the “in-
tegral truth”, in the perfect faithfulness to the doctrine of Jesus
Christ, such as “Peter” transmitted to all the successive “Vicars of
Christ”. To do away from that, is a betrayal. Period!

In fact, the “fruits” derived from Paul Vi’s “new Mass” stand
as an eloquent proof of that betrayal. I would never come to lay
down my pen, were I to document the countless lists of scandals
and sacrileges, of “black masses”, of obscenities, perpetrated after
Vatican II, precisely on account of the “new liturgy”.

Naturally, not all of the disorders can be ascribed directly to Paul
VI. They are, however, the “fruits” of his “liturgical revolution”,
and of his inexplicable “tolerance” toward so many ecclesiastics
that profaned the churches, turning them into dancing halls, theaters,
concert halls, social and Communist convention halls, without ever
intervening with a punishment, without ever requiring the “re-con-
secration” of the profaned churches. The apathy, the scandalous in-
difference of so great a portion of the religious Hierarchy before the
profaned Eucharist (cabaret music, double entendre chants, or dull,
indecent dances, etc.) cannot be said to be a token of faith in the
“Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, in the “Real Presence”, in the

257

Greatness of God in the Eucharist. Nor having relegated the
Blessed Sacrament into a corner of the church, almost hidden from
the people; and the disappearance of the Ostensory, and the sup-
pression, nearly everywhere, of the Holy Hour, of the “Forty
Hours”, of the processions of the “Corpus Domini”; and the Com-
munion received standing; and the abolition of the genuflection’s
before the Blessed Sacrament, and so forth and so on. They have all
been innovations that have diminished the Faith in the Eucharist,
and, consequently, the esteem and love to the Eucharistic Jesus,
among both the clerics and the faithful.

And what were the reasons for doing that? Could anyone claim
it was all “unintentional”?

In any case, Paul Vi’s presentation of the traditional doctrine on
the Eucharist in his encyclical “Mysterium Fidei” certainly does not
play in his defense for all that he has done, favored and tolerated.
Nor will the citation of the “Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy”
for many of his directives paved the way to capriciousness and con-
fusion.

As these “facts” demonstrate:

- On September 21, 1966, Paul VI authorized Miss Barbarina
Olson, a Presbyterian (Protestant), to receive the Communion,
during her wedding Mass, in a Catholic church, without requir-
ing the abjuration of her previous “errors”, nor confession, nor
any form of profession of Faith 22 .

And so, after that scandalous “Papal permission”, there
presently followed not a few other “inter-communions”. The most
notorious are those of the “Assembly of Medellin”, that of Upp-
sala, at the “Ecumenical Council of the Churches”; that of Vau-
girard (Paris); an inter-communion, the latter, Paul VI would then
disapprove of, if only for the “form” 23 . In fact, in July of 1972, in
an official Decree promulgated with Paul Vi’s approval, Cardinal
Willebrands announced that, as of that moment, the “inter-commu-
nions” were left to the judgment of the Bishop. This meant the
Bishops could authorize “Protestants” to take communion during

22 “La Croix” of December 3, 1966 - D. C. January 1967, n. 1485, p. 96.

23 D. C., March 2, 1969, N. 1535, p. 214.

258

the Mass of the Catholics, and, inversely, that the Catholics could
participate in the Protestant celebrations. Since then, however, it

was doubtful whether Paul VI still believed in the “Real Pres-
ence”, and, consequently, in the necessary “conditions” to receive
Christ in the Eucharist; for the reason that, had he really believed
in it, he would not have granted those “permissions” to the Protes-
tants to receive the Eucharist, for the very reason that they do
not believe in it at all.

- On March 23, 1966, Paul VI received Dr. Michael Ramsey,
head of Anglicanism, a Protestant religion. Now, the Catholic
Church, up until Paul VI, had never recognized the validity of the
“priestly Ordinations” of that religious sect. Leo XIII, in fact, in
his Bull “Apostolicae Curae”, declared it “irrevocable” (“per-
petuo ratam, firmam, irrevocabilem”) and taught that the “Or-
dinations conferred according to the Anglican rite are absolute-
ly ineffective and entirely void”.

And yet Paul VI, on that March 23, not only considerately re-
ceived Doctor Ramsey, but went as far as putting a pastoral ring on
his finger - symbol of jurisdiction, that is - and then begged him to
bless the crowd gathered at St. Paul Outside the Wall. [Important
Basilica in Rome’s St. Paul district]

Now, that was a gesture that signaled a clear departure from the
thought of Leo XIII and of the other Popes; and it was like an offi-
cial approval of the Anglican ministries. It is proven by the fact that,
shortly after, the Anglicans celebrated the Eucharist in the Vatican.
In addition, the Episcopalian Deans of the United States and Cana-
da, came to Rome for the Holy Year and celebrated the Eucharist in
the Chapel of the Ethiopian College (on Vatican City’s territory). It
was perhaps the first Eucharistic celebration of a Church that had
come out of the Protestant Reformation, to take place in the Vatican.
The group was composed of 75 people, led by the Dean of Wash-
ington’s Episcopalian Cathedral, the most Reverend Francis B.
Sayre, and was accompanied by the Catholic archbishop of Wash-
ington, Monsignor William Wakefield Baum. Paul VI greeted them
warmly during the general audience of Wednesday, April 23 24 .

24 S. C. June 15, 1975. To be noted: in that same period, the Vatican tried Mon-

259

Isn’t all that very grave?

The Reverend Father Vinson, after his book: “The New Mass
and the Christian Conscience”, published another brochure under
the title: “Messe de l’Antechrist”; a title suggested to him - writes
he - by a text of St. Alphonse Maria Liguori: “L’Antechrist (...)
tachera d’abolir et abolira reellement la Saint Sacrifice de l’au-
tel, en punition des peches des hommes”! (“ The Antichrist (...)
will try to abolish it, and actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the
altar, as punishment for the sins of men”!)

Now, if we read again what Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, one of
the inspirers and authors of that “Novus Ordo Missae”, wrote:

«It is about a fundamental change, I would say,
an almost total alteration, in certain points, an
authentic creation»...

and if we read again the “Letter to Paul VI” accompanying the
“Brief Critical Review of the ‘Novus Ordo Missae’”, wherein it
is said that these changes in the Mass leads one to believe «...That
truths, always believed by the Christian people, can mutate or
remain silent without infidelity to the Sacred Deposit of the Doc-
trine of the Catholic Faith which is bound to for all times», one
would cease doubting that the “Novus Ordo Missae”

«... represents, both in its whole and in details,
a remarkable departure from the Catholic the-
ology of the Holy Mass, such as it was formu-
lated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent,
which, by fixing definitively the “Canons” of
the rite, erected an impassable barrier against

signor Lefebvre in order to suppress his Seminary and strip his “Brotherhood”
even of the “right to existence”. Subsequently, not only was Monsignor Lefeb-
vre barred from celebrating the Holy Mass on Vatican territory, but Paul VI de-
nied him the right to celebrate with him.

260

any heresy that would affect the integrity of the
Mystery» 25 ...

and one would convince oneself that the liturgical changes, op-
erated in the “Novus Ordo Missae”, are neither light nor small nor
simple, but that they are a “...very serious fracture”, since “...
what HAS ENDURED through these volumes of changes, holds
only a diverse minor place, although it is still there ” 26 ...

In fact - we repeat - the “Novus Ordo Missae” does not man-
ifest at all, in a clear manner, the faith in the “Real Presence” of
Our Lord Jesus Christ; but it confuses, rather, the “Real Pres-
ence” of Christ in the Eucharist with His “spiritual presence”
among us. In addition, it facilitates the confusion upon the defi-
nite difference between “Hierarchical Priesthood” and “common
priesthood of the faithful”, such as the Protestants regard as desir-
able. Besides, it favors the Protestant heresy, which affirms that
“the faith of the people and not the words of the Priest render
Christ present in the Eucharist”. And the introduction of the
Lutheran “prayer of the faithful”, too, shows well the error of the
Protestants, which holds that every faithful is a priest.

And again: that having rendered collective the “Confiteor”
(which the Priest, in the Traditional Mass, recited by himself) was a
resumption of Luther’s error, when he refused to accept the tradi-
tional teaching of the Catholic Church, according to which the Priest
is judge, witness and intercessor near to God.

Graver yet was that having reduced the Offertory into a mere
preparation of the gifts, along the lines of Luther, whom elimi-
nated it altogether, precisely for the reason that the Offertory
expressed, in an undisputable manner, the sacrificial and propi-
tiatory character of the Holy Mass. And that is one of the main
reasons the Protestants can now celebrate their “supper” using the
text of the “Novus Ordo Missae”, without renouncing their beliefs.

Max Thurian, a Taize Protestant, also affirmed it, saying that one
of the fruits of the “Novus Ordo Missae” is that the non-Catholic

25 “Brief Critical Review”.

26 Idem.

261

communities will be able to celebrate the supper with the same
prayers of the Catholic Church. It is theologically possible” 27 .

And so Monsignor Dweyer, Archbishop of Birmingham and
spokesman of the Episcopal Synod, could thus rightly say: «The
liturgical reform is the key of the revision. Let us not fool our-
selves: it is from here, the revolution starts».

Paul VI, therefore, with his “New Mass” imposed the “er-
rors” already condemned by the Council of Trent (dogmatic and
pastoral), and stood against Pius VI, who condemned those very
“errors” of the Synod of Pistoia against the Jansenists, and
against Pius XII who condemned, for example, in his Encyclical
“Mediator Dei”, the dinner-table-shaped altar...

And so with his “liturgical revolution”, Paul VI realized the
Judaic-Masonic aspirations of transforming the Catholic
Church into a “NEW ECUMENICAL CHURCH” that would
embrace any ideology, any religion, bundling together truths
and errors. In that sense, symptomatic is Dom Duschak’s state-
ment, made on November 5, 1962: «My idea would be to intro-
duce an ecumenical mass...»; and asked whether such a proposal
came from those of his diocese, he replied: «No, I think, rather,
that they would oppose it, as would numerous Bishops; but were
it possible to put it into practice, I think in the end they would
come to accept it» 2x .

In any case, that giving more value to the altar than to the
Tabernacle marked «... an irreparable dichotomy between the
presence of the Eternal Supreme Priest, in the celebrant, and that of
the Presence sacramentally realized. Today, in fact, it is recom-
mended that the Blessed be kept in a secluded place, wherein the
private devotion of the faithful might be expressed, as if it were a
relic, hence, upon entering the church, one’s eyes would no longer
be fastened onto the Tabernacle, but on an empty and bare dinner-
table^ 9 .

27 “La Croix” of May 30, 1969.

28 Ralph M. Wiltgen, “Le Rhine se jette dans le Tibre”, pp. 37-38.

29 Idem.

262

But the great and holy Pius XII had written, «To separate the
Tabernacle from the altar is tantamount to separating two
things that, by force of their nature, must remain a whole» 30 .

And so, in conclusion, we can say that the “Novus Ordo Mis-
sae” is no longer a “vertical” cult, going from man to God, but it
has become a “horizontal” cult, between man and man. The “New
Church” of Paul VI, that is, has become, as we have already
demonstrated, the “religion of man”, to the detriment of God’s
glory.

I also wish to note, here, that in the “libera nos” of the “Novus
Ordo Missae” not one mention is made of the Blessed Virgin
Mary and of the Saints. Her and their intercession, therefore, is no
longer invoked, not even in times of peril” 31 .

And I would also have you note that in none of the three new
“Eucharistic Prayers” «... is there the tiniest hint as to the state
of suffering of the departed, and in none is there the possibility
of a special “memento”; which depletes the faith in the propitiato-
ry and redemptive nature of the Sacrificed 2 .

At this juncture, we also wish to stress that Paul Vi’s “Novus
Ordo Missae” is not even faithful to the directives of the Coun-
cil, but that, rather, it is in plain contradiction with it, since the
texts and rites, according to the Council, had to be arranged “in
such a way that would allow the holy realities signified by them
to be expressed more clearly”, that is, the texts and rites were to
express more clearly the holy which they signified 33 .

On the contrary, the “Novus Ordo Missae” represents a collec-
tion of changes, of deformations, of departures, of simplistic ex-
pedients, naive and harmful or altogether senseless. It ceases to ut-
ter - or misreads- numerous truths of the Catholic Faith.

It will suffice to mention, here, the principal titles of the points
of departure and non-observance of the principles set out by

30 Pius XII: “Allocution at the International Congress on Liturgy”, Assisi -
Rome September 18-23, 1956 - also “Mediator Dei”, I, 5, p. 25, note 28.

31 Idem.

32 Idem.

33 “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, n. 21.

263

Vatican II itself:

- a “new definition” of the sacrifice of the Mass;

- a suppression of the Latreutic element;

- an insufficiency of “prayers of offering”;

- the suppression of the Trinitarian formulas;

- the elimination of important prayers, both of the celebrant
and of the faithful;

- the diminishing of Angels and Saints;

- the grave dogmatic shortfall of the new Canons;

- the weakened position of the celebrant;

- the mutation of sacred ornamentations within the
churches and of the religious expression of the faithful;

- the free spaces for the autonomous “creativity” of the cel-
ebrant;

- etc...

***

It is impossible, therefore, to cite as evidence that the form im-
pressed upon the “Ordo Missae” had been based upon the indica-
tions of the Vatican II. It is also demonstrated by the “fact” that the
Bishops, after attending that “normative Mass” presented by
Paul VI, rejected it. In fact, it failed to reach the majority of two
third of the Conciliar Fathers. That “new Mass” is thus entirely
Paul Vi’s doing. Behind the “Novus Ordo” stands Paul VI sole-
ly with his authority.

It must be said, in addition, that the “Traditional Mass”, said
of St. Pius V, was never legally abrogated, and it remains, to this
day, a true rite of the Catholic Church, through which the faith-
ful can fulfill their holiday precept 34 because Pius V had granted a
perpetual indult (which was never abrogated), valid “for all time”
to celebrate the Traditional Mass, freely, legally, without any
scruples and without incurring any punishments, conviction or
censure 35 .

34 Canon Law Code, Canons 22 and 30.

35 Papal Bull: “Quo Primum Tempore”.

264

On the other hand, Paul VI himself, in promulgating his “Novus
Ordo Missae”, never had any intention of binding it by Papal in-
fallibility, as he himself stated in his address of November 19, 1969:

«... the rite and related record are not per se a
dogmatic definition; they are susceptible to a
theological qualification of a different value...».

And again: Paul VI, himself, to the explicit question of the
British Cardinal Hennan, as to whether he had prohibited the Tri-
dentine Mass, had replied:

«It is not my intention to prohibit the “Triden-
tine Mass” in any way» 36 .

Vatican I Council (dogmatic) established and stated that:

«The Holy Spirit was not promised to the suc-
cessors of Peter in order that, through His in-
tercession, they preach a new doctrine, but in
order that, through His assistance, they keep
and expound faithfully the Revelation or de-
posit of Faith, transmitted by the Apostles» 37 .

Therefore it must be concluded that Paul Vi’s “Novus Ordo
Missae”, having introduced into his “New Church,” a new doc-
trine” - as we have previously demonstrated - cannot be a matter
of obedience (being obedience in the service of Faith and not Faith
in the service of obedience), hence any faithful is left with a the-
ological duty of obedience to God 38 prior than to man, if he in-
tends to remain inflexible in his profession of the Catholic Faith,
according to the infallible doctrine of “Tradition”!

36 Card. Hennan, Letter to Houghton Brown, president of the “Latin Mass Society”.

37 D. S. 3070.

38 Records, 4, 29

265

MASONIC” ECUMENISM

- Martin Luther belonged to the sect of the Rosicrucians! To under-
stand the relationship between Martin Luther, the Knights of the
Rosicrucians, their aversion to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross
and the killing of God, here are some excerpts from the book by Leon
Meurin: “Freemasonry: The Synagogue of Satan”, in which he
writes:

«There has never been an order of knights that were outside of
Freemasonry! (...) a degree of secret society, whose origins go back be-
yond the seventeenth century. (...).

That sad Knight of Hell, Luther, “wore his seal of a Rose mounted on
a cross”, and it would go beyond that, the Andreins (Valentin Andreae
and his disciples), switching to deism and gnostic naturalism would
give to their sect, in Sweden (in the sixteenth century), the name, then
so famous in the annals of depravity and apostasy of: Rosicrucians.
(...).

The degree of Rose-Cross, 18th of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite, is a profane ridicule of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (...).

In the 18th degree, the Angel liar induces his slaves to offer a bloody
sacrifice. There, the infernal mystery of Freemasonry is as deep as it is
horrible. We are in the presence of a sacrifice to Satan. Just as the Syn-
agogue prompted by Satan to crucify The Lamb of God, so too does
the Masonic Synagogue crucifies him again in effigy (...). The de-
gree of the Rose-Cross is essentially the figurative renewal of the
bloody deicide committed for the first time at Calvary, as the Mass
is the real and bloodless renewals (pp. 329-333).

- Elected spiritual heir Valentin Andreae, Amos Komensky (Come-
nius) undertook to lay the foundations of the modern world under-
stood by designing a plan of Society extended to all peoples with its
own proper plan of POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ECU-
MENISM. In the Comenius program, a Super-Church would rise
from the darkness, which would integrate all religions through a
Council of national churches, in order to reach in the name of a hu-
manistic unity, a philanthropic and tolerant disposition to proclaim the
equality and the coequal dignity of all religions!

266

- A Disciple of the Rosicrucians, Saint- Yves d’Alveydre (one who
continued the work of Comenius), the Abbot Paul Roca (1830-1893),
who was condemned and banned by the Index of the Holy Office in
1888, was one most responsible for Catholic modernism. In contact
with occultists of the Scottish Rite of Martinique and Theosophy, Roca,
before the participants of the 1889 Congress of spiritists and spiritual-
ists, proclaimed: «My Christ is not that one of the Vatican (...),
Christ is the pure Adam-Kadmon of the Kabbalists, i.e. THE RE-
LIGION OF MAN»!

The “ecumenical plan” of Canon Roca stated that he would arrive at
a religion and a «universality of Christianity which would place all
the religious centers of the earth in harmony» (in “Glorieux cente-
naire). The rites will be simplified to facilitate the dissemination of new
concepts of ecumenism: «I think the Divine worship, as expressed in
the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and precepts of the Roman Church
will suffer in the near future in an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, a
transformation-will be put in harmony with the new state of con-
sciousness and modern civilizations (P. Virion, “Mystery of iniquity”)
The plan to destroy the Catholic Church, in the minds of these high
initiatives and programs of Roca, demands the inclusion of Chris-
tianity in the Masonic “Universal Religion”.

To do this, however, it was necessary:

1. An adaptation of doctrine, which assumes the equivalence of all
religions and all religious opinions;

2. New dogma, first of all with Evolution, which assumes Gnostic
Pantheism and Integral Humanism, to make the transition
from the sphere of the Church’s mystical and sacramental
mission (supernatural) to the politico-social (natural);

3. Reconciliation with Masonry: For Roca, in fact, “pure Chris-
tianity” is “socialism” (...) that requires identification of Christ
with humanity: the Gospel thus becomes the history of hu-
manity, through sacrifice, comes to the resurrection!

267

The Catholic Mass.

268

Above: Paul VI and the “Protestant observers” who participated in the discussions on
“Liturgical Reform”.

Below: It could only come from Geneva, a document so disconcerting: the same altar, the
two rites, one confusion. A Catholic priest and a Protestant pastor “concelebrating” in
the presence of the youth, victims of the “ecumenical” disorder. Ut unum sint... in chaos!

Dance around the altar.

Above: February 15, 1981. In Gesu Church - for the Centenary of Marquette University.

Below: 11-8-96: The parish priest of La Colle-sur-Loup organized a “New Look” Mass at the sug-
gestion of the President of the International Festival of Dance on the French Riviera.

Page 269, Top: the Gloria and the Creed... in the Cathedral (New York). The celebrant is Fr. Cooke.
Page 269, In the middle: In the parish of Amby - Holland (Maastricht “of 22-4-79).

Page 269, bottom: In Bruges - France, in the presence of the bishop. Bishop De Smedt.

WWCMtonl

SA CRA

nnn Quamento

' Pta jr tfl ^ nl

11 r *rpiifYui7

h -.WpH» , ■

_> O'# .j^

^ jg| j -^Kg MgplF ,i

■ i ' Mr ! ; ' * JL

III

■ ^

U f

|J^

i f L

H 1 +£\

u 1

Above: The “New Mass”: a chair, a table, a cocktail. The bishop of Ivrea (Italy), His Ex-
cellency Bishop Luigi Bettazzi, president of Pax Christi International, while celebrat-
ing Mass for students at the entrance of Boarding house of Marie Fidelis School, Phonix
Rood Euston (London).

Below: “Tour Round” Mass. Fr. Brian Tomlinson o.f.rn. (First on the left) is the chaplain
of St. Lawerence Seminary, who celebrated the Mass of the 1st Friday for Volunteers of
CYO.

A Jazz Mass in the Cathe-
dral of St. Patrick, New
York: More than 3,000
people attended this “Jazz
Mass”, composed and per-
formed by jazz musician
Mary Lou Williams.
Downstairs, on the main
part of the Altar, Williams
played and conducted her
Mass, sung by the choir of
four Archdiocesan schools.

A missionary who “creates unity among all members of the Church” with the celebra-
tion - in shirtsleeves - of the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice (from” Latin America-Noticeial
“October 1981).

Franciscan priests
and nuns... in “litur-
gical action” (Holy
Mass) in the house of
the “Tabor Communi-
ty.” The altar is a reel
of cable “Code Ed”.

275

6 ta ojtbairoJe

"mince Id l min’d r.lJdtJ^tfljilltnl lie* Kt'ilH'n
jnri?i If pJiteCrt jMJp iS-fXKH \nuw)

H|in<|ua ■ ■ IT Jd

fllbi.li; R«T-"’

/,c fti-^z rntn* h

rt fftt ' 1 t ’'fin rl
riti timiltfiirii# i
in timimuainii
m/pfr>H(

Fin rr^fjf

Des decrete
pon fj'/j'ccrtJx
per me ftp.-;/

k hallst ef
! emplai des
rns/umien/s
de musique
dons fes

riANSt A t.CRAM Pf SI-JO&O'H

r ■

znof j

,B / I*,

u"ii

Ml*

Hi i

Above: The new tools of the new liturgy!

Below: The “First Eucharist (!) [First Holy Communion] in the family” with ordinary
bread. Celebrant: The pastor of Lizzana (Rovereto - Trento - Italy).

pretres ant qiritle
iau enure de I971

I 1 ' t’ 1 . '-'lui.

L °r S i "9 Every One tSndai

LES PffETHES

amti-pretres

^FfMlRW |l

cUrii "" -1

■hi «iii«'"“ ,Ji

RES J ^ , f M ■-

i^/uit grand nomorel a v/oskwop

(% pretres defroquent \ or "* NG «SE «!»»

_ JiDuiniE-niTik .

; Nir m\r\' (Jriurfr Hiiwilnriini. ^ les pretres se font
.Vwu n)«« ijni' iiim 11 mi- f| de plus en plus rares

jirilr, If rlrrjr rsl melldl. | - ^

113 , 440 . m

i ; over six —

_ * In WM -fltf Ifc

En trois am. In nombcc dea ttmiruristes

a Jifnittuc de 12 paw cant dons j e Won J* lf^ ^r/j yCET«« .-■>■--

V*kun Artie Ik* - “*■ -■< .

Lj fHIHE — vl - r ym ‘tfift

Le nombredes pretres; * B} <>0
corhnue de baisser to/*

Left: prayer and meditation, made public by Sister Eileen Bannon, the Franciscan College
of St. Francis of Wheaton (Wheaton II, 16/05/1980). Center: [Fr.] Don Hoshstatter, during
a “holy dance”! He is “associate pastor” of St. Pius church in the Diocese of Peoria.
Right: [Fr.] Don McGuire, “priest-dancer” of “Holy Family” in St. Paul. For five years
his favorite partners: Mrs. Lila Bowers, wife of the local club instructor of “roller-skaters”.

Mass
for divorced
Catholics in
Boston.

280

APPENDIX 1

THE “OATH”

ON THE DAY OF HIS CORONATION

Paul VI, too, on the day of his “Coronation” (June 30, 1963),
pronounced the following “oath”, addressing Our Lord Jesus
Christ:

«EGO PROMITTO...

Nihil de traditione quod a probatissimis praedecessoribus meis
servatum reperi, diminuere vel mutare, aut aliquam novitatem ad-
mittere; sed ferventer, ut vere eorum discipulus sequipeda, totis
viribus meis conatibusque tradita conservare ac venerari.

Si qua vero emerserint contra disciplinam canonicam, emendare;
sacrosque Canones et Constituta Pontificum nostrorum ut divina et
coelestia mandata, custodire, utpote tibi redditurum me sciens de
omnibus, quae profiteor, districtam in divino judicio rationem, cuius
locum divina dignatione perago, et vicem intercessionibus tuis adju-
tus impleo.

Si praeter haec aliquid agere praesumsero, vel ut praesumatur,
permisero, eris mihi, in ilia terribili die divini judicii, depropitius
(...) (p. 43 vel 31).

Unde et districti anathematis interdictioni subjicimus, si quis
unquam, seu nos, sive est alius, qui novum aliquid praesumat con-
tra huiusmodi evangelicam traditionem, et orthodoxae fidei Chris-

281

tianaeque religionis integritatem, vel quidquam contrarium anniten-
do immutare, sive subtrahere de integritate fidei nostrae tentaverit,
vel auso sacrilego hoc praesumentibus consentire».

(“Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum”, p. 54 vel 44, P.L. 1 vel 5).

«I vow:

- to change nothing of the received Tradition, and

nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-
pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to per-
mit any innovation therein; to the contrary: with glowing
affection as their truly faithful student and successor, to safe-
guard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole
strength and utmost effort;

- to cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical
order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and
Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of
Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take
through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with
Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before
Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense,
or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be
merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice (pp. 43
o 31).

Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest
excommunication anyone - be it ourselves or be it another -
who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction
to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the
Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to
change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with
those who undertake such a blasphemous venture».

(from: “Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum”, p. 54 o 44, PL. 1 o 5).

282

Dreadful oath indeed! But I believe it is no use by now to com-
ment upon it, after the “revolution” the Church had to undergo
under Paul Vi’s Pontificate. A “revolution”, in fact, which left out
no aspects as to Dogma, Morals, Liturgy, and even Discipline. A
“revolution”, nonetheless, that had already been foreseen and
courageously denounced by St. Pius X, in his condemnation of
“Modernism” 1 .

Today, however, one can say that Paul VI utterly disregarded
his “oath” before God, pronounced on the day of his coronation, by
which he coerced himself “not to diminish or change anything of
the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before
me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors”... and “to
cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, and to
guard the Holy Canons and Apostolic Constitutions of his Pre-
decessors”.., “and to subject to the severest excommunication
anyone - be it ourselves or be it another - who would dare to un-
dertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evan-
gelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the
Christian Religion...”.

Hence Paul Vi’s “oath” was a “perjury”, since, de facto, he
made it utterly null and void.

Just as when he approved the “Dignitatis Humanae”, a Vatican
II “declaration” on “religious freedom”, which granted, de facto,
to any “error” what-so-ever, the rights that are the exclusive pre-
rogative of the “truth”, namely, of “Divine Revelation”, for it is a
“declaration” of “false freedom”, formally and infallibly always
condemned by the Magisterium of the Church, for the reason that it
goes counter to the Catholic doctrine. In Pius IX’s “Quanta Cura”,
for example, the condemnation of that “religious freedom” is quite
clear: “... Liberty of perdition... against the doctrine of Scrip-
ture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers”; synthesis of vari-
ous errors that, “by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, pro-
scribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doc-
trines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command

1 Pius X, “Lamentabili” of July 3, 1907, DB 200; “Pascendi” of Sept. 8, 1907.

283

that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic
Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned”.

But Paul VI, in spite of that patent “condemnation” of one of
his predecessors, confirmed the “Dignitatis Humanae” in these
other terms:

«Each and every thing, established in this Decla-
ration, has met with the satisfaction (?!) of the Fa-
thers of the holy Council. And we, by virtue of the
Apostolic authority bestowed upon us by Christ,
together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy
Spirit, approve them, decree them and establish
them, and that which has thus been established,
we dispose that it be promulgated to the glory
of God».

(Rome, at St. Peter, December 7, 1965. I, Paul VI, Bishop of
the Catholic Church).

It is a clear and barefaced rebellion to the doctrine of the former
Catholic Church, and many voices soared in protest. But such an
enormity became norm of the “New Conciliar Church”, so much
so that the “New Church” held, by now, any “De Propaganda
Fide” Ministry, counterproductive.

Hence one has plenty of reasons to be concerned about Paul Vi’s
soul, after his passing from this life to the Supreme Tribunal of God,
where he must have had to “account” for his 15 years of Pontif-
icate, during which there was no significance to the words and
deeds to the “oath” he had made on June 30, 1963.

A Paul VI, that is, who betrayed

CHRIST, CHURCH and HISTORY!

284

285

APPENDIX 2

“FIVE-PONTED STAR”
“SIGNATURE” OF THE PONTIFICATE
OF PAUL VI

Top: Magnification of the back of the left hand of Paul VI, engraved with “five-
pointed star”.

On the following page: Detail of tile original N ° 12 of “bronze doors” of St.
Peter’s Basilica (built to mark the 80th birthday of Paul VI) showing Paul VI
with the “five -pointed star (which we highlighted red), engraved on the back of
your left hand.

286

Lenin child watches over little “companion”.

In Soviet primary schools under the Communist regime, the
students, on the anniversary of the October Revolution (Oc-
tober 25) and the birthday of Lenin (April 22), received a
small “five-pointed red star”. In the center, there was the
image of Lenin at the age of six years.

This decoration, in Soviet pedagogy, was to replace the reli-
gious images.

288

“Five-pointed Star”

“Signature” of the Pontificate of Paul VI

“FIVE-POINTED STAR”:
“SYMBOL” OF THE HATRED TO
GOD AND RELIGION

Karl Marx had written: «Religions
are the opium of the people»; «The
abolition of religion as the illusory
happiness of the people is the de-
mand for their real happiness» 1 . And
again, «The root of man is man him-
self... The critique of religion comes
to the doctrinal conclusion that, TO
MAN, THE SUPREME BEING IS
MAN» 2 .

Lenin’s hatred for religion was every
bit as fierce: «A11 religious ideas are
an unspeakable abomination. God is
a monstrous cadaver. Faith in God is
a weakness»; «From now on we shall
be pitiless with everyone. We shall
destroy everything, and on the ruins
WE SHALL BUILD OUR TEM-
PLE».

Lunaciarskij, Minister of Education of
the Lenin government, in lieu of the re-
ligion of God proposed the religion of
hatred: «Down with the love of thy
neighbor! Hatred, that’s what is
wanted! WE MUST LEARN HOW
TO HATE. THAT IS OUR RELI-
GION. Through hatred, we shall
conquer the world».

Stalin, too, was brimming over with
hatred against Religion: «There is no
room for neutrality when it comes to
Religion. Against the propagators of

religious absurdities, the Communist
Party can but pursue its war».
Khrushchev stayed the course of his
predecessors: «The struggle against
Religion is at one with the shaping
up of the NEW MAN, citizen of the
Communist society».

And thus the Religion of God was
abolished, and, in Her place, there ap-
peared a new one: the religion of man.
The Hierarchy, the institutions, the
places of cult, the rites and any refer-
ence to the Religion of God were
jeered at, repressed, encroached on,
abolished, eliminated, and erased.
Even the images and the religious
symbols suffered a similar fate and
were outlawed, and, in their place,
there appeared a strange symbol: The
“Five Pointed Star”.

In Soviet elementary schools, under
the Communist regime, pupils re-
ceived a little “five pointed red Star”,
in whose center stood the image of six-
year-old Lenin. It was the “Lenin
child” watching over the little “com-
rade”, a symbol that, in Soviet peda-
gogy, was to replace religious im-
ages.

The “five pointed red Star” thus
emerged as the symbol of the “new
Communist religion”; a “religion”
hinged upon the hatred to God, and
thus to man, and the alleged aspiration
of shaping up the “new man”, edify-
ing a new “Temple”.

1 Karl Marx, “Manuscripts”. 2 Karl Marx, “Morceaux Choisis”.

289

The “five pointed red Star” thus be-
came the “symbol” of what is the most
anti-Christian that one could envision
and conceive; it became the “symbol”
of the systematic war to the bitter
end against God, against Christiani-
ty and against the Christian Civiliza-
tion.

In fact. Communism was the political
re-proposition of the Masonic and Sa-
tanic Order of the Illuminati of
Bavaria, whose secret program it had
adopted, without changing a word,
turning it into the “Communist Mani-
festo” of 1848. The publication of the
“Manifesto” was financed by two Il-
luminati: Clinton Roosevelt and Ho-
race Greely.

Marx belonged to the Cologne’s
“Apollo” Lodge 3 . Lenin was initiated
to Freemasonry by the “Union de
Belleville” Lodge of the Grand Orient
of France 4 5 . Trotsky entered Freema-
sonry in 1897 s .

Lunaciarskij belonged to the Grand
Orient of France 6 . Mikhail Gor-
bachev has been a member of the Ma-
sonic “Trilateral Commission” since
1989 7 , and even a member of the Ma-
sonic and Satanic “Lucis Trust” 8 . Ig-
or Gaidar, leader of the “Russian
Choice” Party, belongs to the “Coop-
eration” Lodge 9 . Edward Shevard-
nadze, former Soviet Foreign Minister
and current President of Georgia, is the
head of the Georgian Freemasonry and
has been an affiliate, since 1992, of the
“Magisterium” Lodge 10 . Anatoli

Ciubas, head of the Yeltsin’s Adminis-
tration, has been a member of the “Co-
operation” Lodge since 1993 11 , and so
on and so forth.

This “Masonic reality” of Russian
Communism was but a carry-over in
the Masonic tradition of those that had
preceded them. Kerenski was, in fact,
the President of all the Russian
Lodges, and had been in the “Ursa
Minor” Lodge since 1912 12 .

Election Manifesto of the DC [Christian
Democratic Party of Italy] of 1948, in
which appears the head of Stalin that
comes out from a “five-pointed star”.

3 Hiram, n. 5, 1990, p. 114.

4 Y. Moncomble, “Les Vrais Responsables
de la Troisieme Guerre Mondiale”, Edi-
tions Faits et Documents, 1980, p. 86.

5 Platonov, “Bethlehem”, Rodnik Editions,

Moscow 1996, p. 376.

6 ’ 7 Idem, p. 360 and p. 427.

8 “Bethlehem”, EIR. 1989, p. 29.

9 Platonov, “cited works”, p. 426.

10 Idem, p. 438.

11 Idem.

12 Idem, p. 354.

290

“FIVE POINTED STAR”:

THE MASONIC “SYMBOL”

To Freemasonry, symbology and ritu-
al are “everything”. The Freemason

Augusto Lista wrote: “The Real ini-
tiation (...) lies entirely, and I say
ENTIRELY, in Masonic symbolism
and ritualism” 1 .

Masonic symbolism on the one hand,
and iron organization, on the other,
are the two pillars upon which the Ma-
sonic edifice rests, far more than upon
the pseudo-philosophical ravings no
one understands and which convince
no one” 2 .

Of the myriad of symbols the Freema-
son one is confronted with when enter-
ing the Lodge, one stands out above all
the others: it is the symbol of the “Five
Pointed Star”, the “Masonic Sym-
bol” par excellence. The dictionary of
Masonic symbols elevates it to the
station of “Masonic symbol” by
antonomasia.

In fact, such “Star” is found on the
Masonic handkerchiefs, rugs and
Lodge paintings, on sketches and
representations of the Lodge; it is
observed sculpted on monuments, en-
graved on Masonic jewels and medal-
lions; it appears on the portraits of
the initiated, on allegorical Masonic
representations; it shows on the em-
blems of the 2nd, 3d, 4th, 9th, 12th
and 24th degree of the Freemasonry’s
Scottish Rite; it stands out on the Ma-
sonic “aprons” of the “Apprentice”
and of the “Master”; it is placed in the

1 Augusto Lista, “The Spiritual Bases of
Universal Freemasonry”. Rome Ankh,
1946, p. 22.

2 P. F. Giantulli, “The Essence of Italian
Freemasonry: Naturalism”, Pucci Cipri-
ani Editore - Firenze 1973, p. 62.

Fll #r

FL'l'-ik ridl!ili"i JUIr

The “Flaming Star”

“The symbol of Freemasonry”.

The “5-pointed star” inside
“a square and a compass”.

The “5-pointed star” limited
by a “square and a compass”.

291

central point of the “collar” worn by
the Grand Masters; but its highest
place is at the summit of the Palace
of the Grand Lodge of England (the
Freemason’s Hall), located in Lon-
don’s “Great Queen Street”.

292

“Dictionary of Masonic Symbols”

(from: Historia, Les Francs-magons, 1973)

Here is the meaning of some masonic
symbols:

“pentagram”: “man”

“The companion Star, always present in
the Temple when the Lodge works on the
2 nd degree”

Note that in this “Dictionary of Masonic
Symbols” the “Flaming Star” is placed
high up in the words of the same title, to
signify that this is the Masonic “symbol”
par excellence, whose meaning is: man.

293

Above: Meeting of the Lodge. The “five-pointed star” is placed above and center - the
place of honor at the Masonic hall.

Below: Meeting in a military lodge. The “five-pointed star” is the center of the “square
and compass” that stands on the Chair of the Lodge.

294

Emblem of the 9th degree

Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite

«The emblem of the “Elect of the
Nine” “ is topped by a golden halo
surrounding the “Flaming Star”» .

(from: The Heraldic Emblems of
Masonry, Convivio/Nardini Editore -
Firenze 1988, p. 32).

Emblem of 2nd degrees

Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite

«The emblem of the “Fellow Craft”
is topped by a golden halo surround-
ing the “flaming star” with the letter
“G”».

(from: The Heraldic Emblems of
Masonry, Convivio/Nardini Editore -
Firenze 1988, p. 18).

Emblem of the 12th grade

Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite

«The emblem of the “Grand Master
Architect” is topped by a golden ha-
lo around a "'Flaming Star”».

(from: The Heraldic Emblems of
Masonry, Convivio/Nardini Editore -
Firenze 1988, p. 38).

295

“Grand Master” Apron,
eighteenth century -
OFM Rosenau.

(See Marcel Valmy, The
Masons, Ed Cantini,
Firenze 1991, p. 173).

The “Flaming Star”
with the letter “G” in it,
stands in the top center
of the apron, above all
the other Masonic sym-
bols.

“Grand Master”

Apron. (See Marcel
Valmy, The Masons, Ed
Cantini, Firenze 1991,
p. 174).

The “Flaming Star”
with the letter “G” ap-
pears in the “square and
compass,” in the center
of the apron.

296

The Grand Master of the
Grand Lodge of France,
Lawyer Richard Dupuy, with
the apron, on which stands the

“five-pointed star”.

Necklace from “Grand Master”, twentieth century -
Lodge “Zur Kette” (“To the Chain”), Monaco (See
Marcel Valmy, The Masons, Ed Cantini, Firenze 1991, p.
182). The “five-pointed star” appears at the top and the
lowest point of the series, where it engages the “square”.

The former Grand Master
of the Palazzo Giustiniani,
Armando Corona,
who wears a necklace

of “Grand Master”.

Magnification of the
central part of the
“necklace by
Grand Master”
(worn by former
Grand Master,
Armando Corona),
which appears in
“five-pointed star”.

297

298

“FIVE POINTED STAR”:
“SYMBOL” OF MAN

The central theme and dominating
sign of Masonic symbolism is Man.
Man inspires the entire Masonic
symbology: «A11 the rites, fables, leg-
ends, myths refer to one and one
subject alone: man. The same is true
with Masonic symbolism» 1 .

Now, the true “Spirit” is not the sen-
timental one, but the initiatic one. The
Freemason, in the composition of the
“Square” and of the “Compass” - the
most common symbols through which
Freemasonry is manifested - “sees” the
“Pentagram” (or five-pointed-Star”)
both inscribed and circumscribed 2 (see
figures on p. 291).

And, in its explicit representations, as
in the underlying occult ones, the
“Five-Pointed-Star” outdoes, in con-
sequence, all the others, even for its ca-
pacity to express and symbolize the an-
thropological and physical aspects,
down to the most rooted and profound
peculiarities of human nature.

And so the “Five-Pointed-Star”, or
“Blazing Star”, becomes to Freema-
sonry the profoundest and holiest of
its symbols.

Guillemain de Saint-Victor states,
«The “Blazing Star” is the center
whence the light originates*- 3 . Geda-
gle writes, «“The Blazing Star” rep-
resents the light enlightening the dis-
ciples of the Masters (...); it is, there-
fore, the symbol of Intelligence and
Science» 4 .

1 G. Ceschina: article appeared on the Mag-
azine of Palazzo Giustiniani, under the title:
“Masonic Symbolism”.

2 Jules Boucher, “La Symbolique Macon-
nique”, Editions Dervy-Livres 1983, p. 10
and p. 273.

3 Guillemain de Saint- Victor, “Precieux
Recueil”, p. 60.

4 “Dictionnaire Mayonnique”, 1921, p. 48.

«The” Pentagram with the point
above is considered as active and
beneficial (...) the “Pentagram”
reverse, with two points up, is
considered passive and evil».
(From Jules Boucher, “La sym-
bolique magonnique”, Dervy-
Livres, 1963, p. 224).

Drawing from the book:
Oswald Wirth, “La Franc-Ma-
connerie rendu intelligible a ses
adeptes. - II. Le Compagnon”.

Laval, Le Symbolisme, 1963, p. 59.

299

A Masonic document reads, «“The
Blazing Star” is the emblem of free
thought, of the sacred fire of genius,
which elevates man to lofty achieve-
ments^.

Wirth observes that the «“Pentalpha”
(...) is a magical symbol referring to
the powers of human will» 5 6 . In the
dictionary of Masonic symbols, the
“Five-Pointed-Star” has this signifi-
cance: man 7 .

The Freemason Gorel Porciatti writes,
«“The Blazing Star”, that appears to
the victorious Comrade of earthly at-
tractions, is the star of Human Ge-
nius; it has five points, corresponding
to the head and to the four limbs of
Man; it is the Star of the Microcosm
that, in Magic, personifies the sign of
Sovereign Will, that is, the irre-
sistible instrument of action of the
Initiated. In order for it to carry this
value, it must be sketched out in such a
manner that a human person might be
inscribed into it; it must, that is, have
the point pointing upwards» 8 . The man,
within the “The Five-Pointed-Star”,
is occasionally associated to the 7 sym-
bols of the heavenly bodies. Wirth, in
his book “The Tarots”, explains that
the amalgam of these 7 symbols forms
a monogram «linking to the devil».

5 Petit Memento Ma§onnique, 1921, p. 48.

6 Oswald Wirth, “Les Mysteres de l’Art
Royal”, 1932, p. 197.

7 Dictionnaire des symboles, “Hors Serie
30 - Historia: les Francs Masons”, 1973,
p. 58-59.

8 Umberto Gorel Porciatti, “Masonic Sym-
bology Azure Freemasonry”, Roma
Orizzonti 1946, p. 112.

This picture, taken from the book
“De Occulta Philosophia” H. Cor-
nelius Agrippa of Nettesheim, shows
the man in the “Five-pointed Star”
associated with the 7 Rosicrucian al-
chemical symbols representing the
celestial bodies: Mars, Jupiter, Sat-
urn, Mercury and Venus, and in the
middle: Sun and Moon.

Here is the comment by Oswald
Wirth: “Seven is the number of
harmony” and the amalgamation of
these 7 symbols from the monogram,
reproduced below, that “connects ...
the Devil”! (See Oswald Wirth, “I
Tarocchi”, Ed. Mediterranee, Rome
1990, pp. 57-358).

300

“FIVE POINTED STAR”:
“SEAL”

OF THE MASONIC POWER

It is now clear why the programs of the
sect are inscribed in its symbology, and

why it rarely omits to initial with its
symbols its initiatives and its tri-
umphs, and, consequently, the histori-
cal occurrences originating from its
lodges, as well as the institutions in
which it wields its occultic power.
And it is precisely the “five-pointed-
Star”, or “Masonic Pentalpha”, the
symbol which, more frequently,
Freemasonry is keen to mark its own
conquests and symbolize its own
dominance.

In fact, it is the very Star that covers
the flag of the United States of Amer-
ica. It is the very Star that symbolized
the “Bolshevik Revolution”; the very
Star that appeared on the emblem of
the “Red Brigades”; it is the very Star
that appeared on the emblem of the for-
mer Italian Communist Party (PCI)
and on that of the former Democratic
Party of the Left (PDF) [name the for-
mer Italian Communist Party (PCI)
took up on November 24, 1989, ap-
proving party’s secretary Achille Oc-
chetto’s proposal at the famous
Bolognina caucus, at Bologna]; it is the
very Star that stands out on the Chi-
nese, Cuban, North Korean, Viet-
namese, Algerian, Tunisian, Moroc-
can, and Somali flag, and on the flags
of most Nations, as well as on the in-
signia of the Republic of Italy.

The “five-pointed-Star” appears also
on the emblems of the United States
Army, as on the Russian and Chinese
ones. The “Star” stands out also on the
“Medal of the Order of the October
Revolution”, the high honor that used
to be bestowed upon Heads of States
and Ambassadors; and on the “Medal
of the Order of the Patriot War”, be-
stowed upon all the Soviets that fought
in World War II.

301

Even the “epaulettes” on the collar of
Italian military uniforms carry the
same significance. They were pre-
scribed, in 1871, by the then Minister
of War, Cesare Ricotti-Magnai,
whom, as a good Freemason, had sup-
pressed military Chaplains and Sunday
Mass, “replacing the cross of the
Savoy with the Masonic Star” 1 . His
“sister” Maria Rygier of the French
Fodge “Human Right”, wrote in a
book, on this subject: «... (Freema-
sonry) has given Italy her most pre-
cious treasure: the holy Pentalpha,
and has wanted that the Blazing Star
be put on display on the uniform of the
soldiers, undoubtely because the mag-
ical virtue of the blood, shed for the
Homeland, would vitalize the august
pentacle» 2 .

Recently, “Avvenire ” 3 magazine, too,
in a brief article emblematically titled:

“Masonic Star in the Square of the
Palace”, speaks of the restoration of
the magnificent Papal square before
Montecitorio Palace [Italian Parliament
seat] “embellished” with a «wealth of
“five-pointed-Stars”, that is, the
most important and most widely
known symbol of Freemasonry». And
«That Star has been shining ever
since the unity of the Nation was re-
alized by Freemasonry against the
Catholic Church. The circumstance is
recalled, with exemplar clarity, also by
“Civilta Cattolica” magazine of 1887.
Which reads: “The five-pointed-star
is the lucky star Freemasonry pre-
sented Italy with, and, with insolent
sectarian effrontery, imposed upon

1 Rosario F. Esposito, “The good Deeds of
the Lay, Anti-Clerical, and Freemasons”,
Edizioni Paoline, Roma 1979, p. 273.

2 Marie Rygier, “La K r a n c - \I a c o n n e i r i e
Italienne Devant la Guerre et Devant le
Fascisme”, Paris, Gloton, 1930, p. 32.

3 “Avvenire”, June 26, 1998, p. 7.

302

the armed forces, and planted on the
pillars before the building of the Fi-
nance Ministry in Rome, and
sneaked in everywhere, even on the
coat-of-arms of the Republics and of
the Monarchies, on shop signs, on
the necklaces of frivolous ladies, on
the caps and toys of children”».

I * ★ I

Flag of North Korea

★

Flag of Vietnam

Flag of Algeria

Flag of Somalia

303

“FIVE POINTED STAR”:

ON THE FOREHEAD OF THE
“BAPHOMET”

The “five-pointed-Star” “shines” on

the forehead of the “god” of Freema-
sonry, the “Baphomet”.

Alphonse Louis Constant defines the
Baphomet 1 : “The Beak of the Devil”.
He then affirms, “Let us say boldly
and resoundingly that all of the initi-
ated to the occult sciences have wor-
shipped, worship and will always
worship that which is signified by
that symbol” 2 .

Father Rosario F. Esposito writes that
«(The Baphomet) was carried in pro-
cession during the initiation rite of
the 29 th degree (Grand Scottish of St.
Andrew, in Scotland) and it is object
of pseudo-adoration in numerous fe-
male initiations. The ceremonies that
were once celebrated in his honor were
the same of phallic character cele-
brated in honor of the Apis Ox» 3 .

Writes the Freemason John Symonds,
«abjure the faith and abandon your-
self to all the pleasures (...) Glorify
the Baphomet; he is the true god!
Renounce Christianity and do as you
please !» 4 .

Thus the Baphomet would be the god
of base morals. Not only that, but the
“five-pointed-Star” would then be the
“symbol” of those foul “morals”. It is

1 Alphonse Louis Constant, “High Magic
Ritual”, p. XI.

2 Idem, p. 209.

3 Father Rosario Esposito, Freemasonry
and Italy”. See glossary at appendix, under
the voice "Baphomet”.

4 John Symonds, “The Great Beast”, p.
192-193.

The figure represents the Baphomet,
the god of Masonry, by the monstrosity
of its forms, symbolizes the Masonic
“Universal Religion”.

On the front of Baphomet stands the
“five-pointed star”, designed - accord-
ing to the requirements of ritual magic -
without removing the hand from the pa-
per, tracing a “triple interlaced trian-
gle”, which is the symbol of the “sub-
lime secret”, the “key to all science”,
the “truth without veils”, the
“supreme initiation” of Freemasonry.

304

the Freemason Gorel Porciatti to say
it: «(The “five-pointed-Star), when
turned upside-down becomes the
symbol of the bestiality of the foul in-
stincts; in it, so upturned, one can in-
scribe the head of a beak (the head of
the Baphomet!)» 5 .

The Freemason Jules Doinel, founder
of the “Gnostic Church”, in his book
“Lucifer Unmasked”, is even more
explicit: «The ‘Blazing Star’ is Lu-
cifer himself»; and he adds that, to
each of the points of the Star, corre-
sponds one of man’s five senses: «The
eyesight is the perception of the Lu-
ciferian world. The sense of smell is of
the “good Luciferian odor”. The touch
is the perception of the demoniac ac-
tion upon flesh and spirit. The taste is
the anticipated perception of the Satan-
ic bread and wine which, later on, the
Rosacrucian knight is to break up and
drink at the supper of the 18 th degree.
The hearing is the perception of the
voice of Satan» 6 .

The Freemason Alphonse Louis Con-
stant, in his book “Ritual of High
Magic”, writes on the subject: «This
Star indicates the presence of Satan
and of the light he radiates onto
Freemasonry».

5 Umberto Gorel Porciatti, “Masonic Sym-
bology - Azure Freemasonry”, Roma
Orizzonti 1946, p. 112.

6 Jules Boucher, “Masonic Symbology”,
Ed. Atanor 1990, p. 236.

The “five-pointed star” shape, ie
with two points upwards, is the sym-
bol of the animal instincts of the un-
clean, and inverted it you can in-
scribe the head of a goat (the head of
Baphomet).

Above: Drawing from the book by
Oswald Wirth: “La Franc-macon-
nerie rendu intelligible a ses
adeptes”.

Below: Drawing from the book of
Joules Boucher: “La symbolique
ma^onnique”.

305

“FIVE POINTED STAR”:
“SYMBOL”

OF THE “CULT OF MAN”

In an excerpt of the “Secret Instruc-
tion”, given by the Unknown Superi-
ors of Freemasonry to General

Giuseppe Garibaldi, 1 we read:

«It is thus essential, to you. Brother
(...) that you do not forget that, in our

Order, no degree unveils the Truth
completely; it only renders the veil
that hides it from the gazes of the curi-
ous a little thinner. To us, invested with
the supreme power, to us alone, it
strips it bare, and inundating our intel-
ligence, our spirit and our heart, it
makes us know, see, and perceive that:

1. Man is, at one time, “GOD”,
“PONTIFF” and “KING” OF HIM-
SELF. That is the “sublime secret”,
the “key to every science”, and the
“apex of the initiation”.

2. Freemasonry, perfect synthesis of
all that is human, is thus “GOD”,
“PONTIFF” and “KING” OF HU-
MANITY. And now it deploys its uni-
versality, its vitality, and its power.

3. As for us, grand Masters, we form
the holy Battalion of the sublime Pa-
triarch that is, in turn, “GOD”,
“PONTIFF” and “KING” OF
FREEMASONRY.

Here, Brother, is the “THIRD TRI-
ANGLE”, the “THIRD TRIPLE
TRUTH” which will give your intelli-
gence, your mind and your heart the in-
effable happiness of the absolute pos-
session of the “Truth without veils”.

(...) The total teaching of the 33 de-
grees of the Scottish Rite of Freema-
sonry is contained in this passage:

“Man is, to himself, God, Pontiff and
King: he is similar to God”».

Now, this self-divinization of man
constitutes the first “triple truth”:
the “FIRST TRIANGLE”. The sec-
ond “triple truth” is the self-di-
vinization of Freemasonry: the
“SECOND TRIANGLE”. The third
“triple truth” is the self-divinization
of the Heads of Freemasonry: the
“THIRD TRIANGLE”.

That is the deepest and most jealous-
ly kept secret by the echelon of
Freemasonry. What now remains to be
underscored is that this “truth without
veils”, namely, the “self-divinization”
of Humanity, of Freemasonry, and of
the Battalion in command, constitute
the three “triple truths” that, repre-
sented by the three “gilded” trian-
gles, mutually intertwined, “com-
pose” the “five-pointed-Star”.

The “cult of Lucifer”, thus manifested
in the “Secret Instructions” or in
Freemasonry’s most reserved docu-
ments, is, nonetheless, presented pub-
licly almost invariably under the more
presentable form of “religion of man”
or “religion of Humanity”, or - which
makes no difference - as “cult of
Man” or “cult of Humanity”.
Freemasonry makes no mystery of be-
ing promoter of this Satanic religion.
The French politician and Freemason
Viviani, insisted on this point: «(We
must) substitute the ‘religion of hu-
manity’ for the Catholic Religion» 2 .
Wrote the high initiate Tommaso Ven-

1 The secret instruction was published by
Paolo Rosen in his book: “L’Ennemie So-
ciale”.

2 Enrico Delassus, “The Issue of the Pre-
sent Hour”, Desclee and C. Tipografi-Edi-

tori 1907, vol. I, p. 28.

3 Tommaso Ventura, “Freemasonry on Tri-
al - Its True Origin - Its True Essence”.
Rome, Atanor, 1961, p. 113-114.

306

tura: « Authentic Freemasonry (...) re-
veals a new vision of History; it is Hu-
manity renewing itself that equili-
brates the classes, brings the Nations
together, and brings redemption to
all, not in heaven, but on earth» 3 .
The Masonic magazine “Monde
Matjonnique” made the following
statement: «Freemasonry makes us
know that there is but one true reli-
gion and, as a consequence, but one
natural religion: THE CULT OF
HUMANITY» 4 .

In the work “The Deification of Hu-
manity, or the Positive Side of
Freemasonry”, Father Patchtler

demonstrated rather well the signifi-
cance Freemasonry gives the word
“humanity”, and the use it makes of it.
That word - says he - postulates,

1. The absolute independence of

man in the intellectual, religious
and political domain;

2 . denies for him any supernatural
end;

3. affirms that the purely natural
perfection of the human descent
be headed for the avenues of
progress.

To these three errors correspond the
three stations on the way of evil:

1. Humanity without God;

2. Humanity that makes itself God;

3. Humanity against God.

Such is the edifice that Freemasonry
wants to build through its “religion of
Humanity” or “cult of Man”; and the
“five-pointed-Star” is the “dynamic”
symbol of this path toward the Satanic
aim of the “man-god”.

4 “Monde Martinique” of January and
May 1870 (E. Delassus, cited work, vol. I,
p. 35).

The Grand Master, Derosiere (center)
of the French National Grand Lodge. In
the background, the “triangle” with the
letter “G”.

In the book of Masonic symbolism,
Boucher explains the reason for choos-
ing this particular triangle, as a form to
be taken to the “Delta light” that ap-
pears in the Lodge: «We give prefer-
ence to an isosceles triangle where the
angle at the top measures 108 ° and 36°
angles at the base (...) because its pro-
portions are imposed by themselves.
Three of these triangles allows [us] to
form a “Pentagram”, which, for this
reason is called “triple braided Trian-
gle”». (pp. 92-93).

We reproduce the figure that appears in
the book, adding colors for a better un-
derstanding.

F». k

It Tilplt Tilanelt recrt.'l

307

The “bronze door” in St. Peter’s Basilica - Rome.

This “door”, called “The Door of Good and Evil”, was executed by Luciano Minguzzi,
and was put in place in 1977 on the birthday of Paul VI (born September 26, 1897).

Next page: The original “tile” No. 12, which depicted the Second Vatican Council, with
four council Fathers between John XXIII and Paul VI.

308

THE “FIVE POINTED STAR”:
ON THE BRONZE HAND
OF PAUL VI

It is the “bronze door” when it was in-
augurated. On the “Door of Good”, in
panel 12, there appeared the “Second
Vatican Ecumenical Council”: four
Conciliar Fathers between John
XXIII and Paul VI”.

However, while John XXIII and the
other four conciliar Fathers were
sculpted with the face looking forward,
Paul VI (the last on the right) was
sculpted instead in profile, so as to pre-
sent, in good showing, his left hand
bearing the engraving of the Mason-
ic insignia: the “five-pointed-Star”,
or “Masonic Pentalpha”.

Shortly after the inauguration of that
“new bronze door” of St. Peter’s
Basilica, I went to see it. Observing it
closely, I immediately noticed that Ma-
sonic emblem on the back of Paul Vi’s
left hand. So I rushed to see a Cardinal,
to report the fact. He assured me that
he would promptly look after the mat-
ter. In fact, when soon afterwards I re-

turned to Rome, just to check on that
“bronze door”, I noticed immediately
that that Masonic emblem on the
back of Paul Vi’s left hand had been
scraped off: all one could see was the
live red of the copper. It was all clear!
Having been discovered, those respon-
sible for the fact had seen, first, that
the Masonic symbol were erased
from the hand, and then - as I myself
could see on a subsequent trip to Rome
- had panel N. 12 replaced with an-
other - the current one - on which,
however, the six previous figures had
now become five, as anyone can see.
Now, how could anyone explain that
a Pope (Paul VI) had his image
sculpted onto that “bronze door”,
with that Masonic symbol on the
back of his hand, well aware that it
would remain there as a testimony,
down the centuries, and that He, Paul
VI, would be judged a “Freemason
Pope?”

And certainly one cannot say that that
work of the sculptor Minguzzi’s had
been executed unbeknownst to him
and without his approval, since it was

309

PORT ft DEL BENE E DEL MALE
THE DOOR OF GOOD AND EVIL

■0

Author: Luciano Minguzzi - implementation in 1977

Produced for the birthday of Paul VI (born in Concesio November

26, 1897).

Shutter of EVIL

1 - Martyrs Vitale and Agricola (the slaves are equal to the

slave master)

2 - A hawk holds a dove in its claws

3 - St. Andrew martyred on the cross as St. Peter

4 - Slavery in humanity

5 - The religious and political martyrs (torture and repression)

6 - Abel killed his brother, Cain.

7 - The Bad Thief Gesta dies unrepentant to the left of Jesus

Shutter of GOOD

8 - St. Augustine with the sermon eradicates heresy

9 - A pair of doves nesting

10 - John baptizes a hermit

11 - An African cardinal gives the Eucharist to a soldier

12 - The Second Vatican Council. Four Council Fathers

between John XXIII and Paul VI

13 - The Raising of Lazarus

14 - Archangel Raphael accompanies Tobias.

310

This is the “second tile” No. 12 of “bronze door”, which replaced the “first”, represent-
ing the “five-pointed star” on the back of the left hand of Paul VI.

Right: Magnification
of the figure of Paul VI,
with the “five-pointed star”
(which we highlighted in red)
on the back of his left hand,
as it appeared in the “first tile”.

him to bless it on the date of his
birthday, as it was also published,
later, on a “Special Insert” of the
“Osservatore Romano”, for his
eightieth birthday 1 , and precise-
ly with that satanic mark on his
hand, a “signature”, as it were -
and not a common one - of his
Pontificate”.

1 Special Insert of the “Osservatore
Romano”, Sunday, September 25,
1977, p. XI.

311

I iiu porta mima
|k.t la Basilica Yulteaiia

Special insert “L’Osservatore Romano,” Sunday, September 25, 1977, p. XI.

312

“FIVE POINTED STAR”:
“SIGNATURE” OF PAUL Vi’s
PONTIFICATE

This statement is disquieting, as this

“signature” of the “five-pointed-
Star”, sculpted on the back of Paul
Vi’s hand, on the original “panel” of
St. Peter’s Basilica’s “bronze door”,
is perhaps the most disconcerting and
reckless act of a tremendous reality
that, throughout his Pontificate, kept
coming to the surface, to then give
shape to a mosaic that lay bare Paul
Vi’s incredible and unspeakable ap-
proach toward Freemasonry.

And that, he did following 250 years
of renewed “excommunications”,
“admonishments”, “punishments”,
and after about 200 “documents” of
the Magisterium of the Church against
Freemasonry, and after 16 Encyclicals
and over 590 “convictions” against
that sect, branded as “Kingdom of Sa-
tan” by Leo XIII in his 1884 Encycli-
cal “Humanum Genus”.

Immediately after the publication of
that Encyclical, the high initiate Tom-
maso Ventura, having recognized
“Humanum Genus” as the “most cel-
ebrated solemn anti-Masonic docu-
ment”, wrote, «Pope Leo XIII was
right on the point; he perceived what
Freemasonry was; he uncovered its
precise physiognomy; he lay bare its
aspirations in unequivocal terms»>.
Now, the Church never did entertain
any uncertainties or doubts in Her
struggle against Freemasonry; it was
only with the advent of Vatican II,
and with Paul VI in particular, that
the “new approach” reversed the
previous position of the Magisterium

of the Church, adopting “ecumeni-
cal” and “liberal” stances toward
Freemasonry up to the point of “look-
ing forward to a peace between the
two institutions”.

In order to shed some light upon this
odd aspect of Paul Vi’s personality,
we list a few of the many “facts” and
“remarks” relating to his person 1 2 :

1) A Masonic magazine reads: «The
Grand Master Gamberini, on the
very day of the announcement of Mon-
tini’s election to the Pontificate, said:
“Here is our man!”»

2) The “obituary”, or funeral ora-
tion, the former Grand Master of
Palazzo Giustiniani, Giordano Gam-
berini, made of Paul VI on the “Riv-
ista Massonica” Magazine 3 : «To us -
it is read - it is the death of HE who
made the condemnation of Clement
XII and of his successors fall. That
is, it is the first time - in the history
of modern Freemasonry - that the
Head of the greatest Western reli-
gion dies not in a state of hostility
with the Freemasons». And he con-
cludes: «For the first time in history,
the Freemasons can pay respect to
the tomb of a Pope, without ambigu-
ities or contradiction^.

3) In a private letter, written by a
Freemason friend of the renown
French writer, Count Lion de
Poncins, expert in Masonic issues, the
following passage appears, «... With
Pius X and Pius XII, we Freemasons
could do very little, but, ‘avec Paul
VI, nous avons vencu.’ (With Paul
VI we won’)».

1 Tommaso Ventura, “Freemasonry on
Trial - Its True Origin - Its True
Essence”. Atanor, Roma 1961, p. 113-114.

2 Luigi Villa, “Paul VI... beatified?”, Edi-

zioni Civilta Brescia 1998, Chapter IV, p.

117-155.

3 “La Rivista Massonica”, n. 5, July 1978,
p. 290.

4 “La Rivista Massonica”, ed., p. 290.

313

4) Under his Pontificate, “Masonic
laws” were introduced in Italy, such as

divorce, abortion, and separation be-
tween Church and State. And there
was a thorough penetration of
Freemasonry even into the ordinary
ecclesiastical structures.

5) On November 13, 1964, Paul VI

laid down the “Tiara” (the “trireg-
no”) on the altar, definitively renounc-
ing it. A gesture that was the objec-
tive of the “French Revolution”. The
French Freemason Albert Pike wrote:
«The inspirers, the philosophers,
and the historical leaders of the
French Revolutions had sworn to
overthrow the “CROWN” and the
“TIARA” on the tomb of Jacques de
Molay» 5 .

6) During his trip to the Holy Land (in
1954) on the Mount of Olives, at
Jerusalem, Paul VI embraced the Or-
thodox Patriarch Athenagoras I,
Freemason of the 33d degree. Then,
on the eve of the closing of Vatican
II, the pair lifted the mutual “ex-
communications” launched in 1054.

7) On March 23, 1966, he put on the

finger of Dr. Ramsey, secular and
Freemason, Anglican archbishop of
Canterbury, his “new conciliar ring”
and then imparted, together with
him, the “blessing” to those present.

8) With Paul VI, through Cardinal
Bea, the Freemasons managed to ob-
tain, at the Council, the “Decree” on
“Religious Freedom”, in order to
achieve the so much yearned-for real-
ization of a “universal religion”, then
set off with the contracting syncretisti-

cally, of the “Ecumenical Movement”
of Assisi. And while Paul VI always
refused to receive the Catholics of
Tradition, he continually welcomed,
on the other hand, the members of the
Masonic Lodges, such as, for example,
those of the High Jewish Freemason-
ry of the “B’nai-Brith” and those of
“L’ Alliance Israelite Universelle”,
which aims at achieving the union of
all religions into one.

9) His identity of views with the “Ma-
sonic scheme” can also be observed in
the identity of his programs with the
Masonic schemes of the UN, and of
UNESCO. I would have one read, for
example, his encyclical “Populorum
Progressio”, in which Paul VI speaks
of a “world bank” backed by a
“world Government”, which would
be ruling thanks to a “synthetic and
universal religion”.

10) In his address to the UN of Octo-
ber 4, 1965, Paul VI uttered unusual
and astonishing declarations, such as
the following:

«(...) We presume to say (the UN) is
the reflection of the loving and tran-
scendent design of God for the
progress of the human family on
earth, a reflection in which we see
the heavenly message of the Gospel
(...)»

Before he pronounced his humanist ad-
dress in front of the General Assembly

of the UN, Paul VI had stepped into
the “Meditation Room”, the Masonic
sanctuary, at the center of which
stands “an altar for a faceless God”,
which the Secretary General of the UN,
Dag Hammarskjold, had described as
an altar to the Universal Religion 6 .

5 Albert Pike, “Morals and Dogma”, vol. Sects: The Occult face of History”, Ed-

II, p. 156. itrice Ichtys, Rome, p. 429.

6 Epiphanius, “Freemasonry and Secret

314

This photograph depicts a ceremony of great symbolic importance: Paul VI de-
poses, finally, the tiara on the altar. It is the major objective of the French
Revolution, implemented by the hands of him who sat on the throne of Peter, a

most important result of the beheading of Louis XVI, and also of “breach
of Porta Pia”.

We recall the words of the Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, Albert Pike: «The
inspiration, the philosophers and the historical leaders of the French Rev-
olution had sworn to overthrow the crown and tiara on the tomb of Jacques
de Molay (...) When Louis XVI was executed, half the work was done, and
since then the Army of the Temple was to direct all its efforts against the Pa-
pacy». (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, vol. VI, p. 156).

315

Moreover, Paul VI should have
known that the UN, at its highest
levels, is directed by a Satanic sect,
the “Lucifer Trust” (renamed “Lucis
Trust”), which is the real spiritual
brain of the UN and UNESCO, whose
founder had for an objective «to wipe
our Christianity from the face of the
earth», and «throw out God from the
heavens».

11) A head of Freemasonry, Minister
of State of the Supreme Council of the
Scottish Rite in France, Mr.
Marsaudon, in his book: “Ecu-
menism From the Perspective of a
Freemason of Tradition”, speaking of
all Pope Montini had done, wrote: «...
The Christians should not forget
that all avenues (all religions) lead to
God, and stay within this brave no-
tion of freedom of thought. One
could really speak of a Revolution
that from our Masonic Lodges has
spread out magnificently, reaching
the top of St. Peter’s Basilica».

12) Finally, his “Liturgical Reform”
had been foreseen by the Freemason
and apostate Roca, in 1883: “The di-
vine cult -Roca wrote - in an Ecu-
menical Council shall undergo a
transformation that will put it in
harmony with the state of modern
civilization” 7 . Roca’s plan for the in-
troduction of Christianity into the Ma-
sonic “Universal Religion”, provided
for:

a) A doctrinal adaptation, which pre-
supposed the equivalence of all cults
and religious views;

b) New Dogmas, primarily that of
Evolution, which presupposes Gnos-
tic Pantheism and Integral Human-

ism, for the passage of the mission of
the Church from the mystical and
sacramental (supernatural) sphere to
the political-social (natural) one;

c) A rapprochement with Freema-
sonry;

d) The birth of the “priests of the fu-
ture”, whom are to involve them-
selves with the “social” and abandon
the “supernatural”.

And so on along this line.

And thus Freemasonry, with Paul
VI, had not only penetrated the
grass-root Church, but also the eche-
lon of the Vatican, both with clerics
and secular. And that is conceded at
the highest levels, too 8 . It is sufficient
to read Chapter IV (“His Opening to
Freemasonry”) of our book, “Paul
VI... beatified?” to realize this fact.

To conclude: who was, then, Paul VI?
It will suffice to recall that Paul VI had
been opposed to Pius XII’ s “political-
religious line” with his own “political-
secular line”, through which he, “Pro-
Secretary of State”, betrayed Pius
XII, setting up “secret channels” with
Moscow and other Communist Heads
of State, forgetful of, or in contempt of
what Pius XI had written in his En-
cyclical “Divini Redemptoris Promis-
sio” (1937) against Communism, clear-
ly branding it as “intrinsically per-
verted” and as a “tragedy to humani-
ty”.

But now, Paul Vi’s “betrayal” stands
before the tribunal of History.

7 Pierre Virion, “Mystere d’Iniquite”, ed. bishop of Genoa From 1946 To 1987”,

Saint-Michel, 1967, p. 21-43. Bologna 1990.

8 Raimondo Spiazzi, “Cardinal Siri Arch-

316

Paul VI.

317

Paul VI.

317

WARNINGS FROM
OUR LADY

Our Lady, Mother of God, our Mother
and Mother of the Church in recent
centuries, has given us warnings on the

tremendous crisis that the Church
would suffer from the mid-Twentieth
Century and beyond.

She uses words that are precise and un-
ambiguous, though tragic and terrible
in its contents.

In her appearance at La Salette, Our
Lady was displeased with the conduct
of the Ministers of God for their “evil
life” for their “love of money, honors
and pleasures”, but most especially
for their “irreverence and impiety in
celebrating the Holy Mysteries”.

She already knows the reality of the
betrayal of so many ministers of God
who, having thrown themselves into
the arms of the infamous Sect of
Freemasonry, do not worship the tme
God, but worship only themselves:
“Tremble... you who proclaim to
worship Jesus Christ, but on the in-
side, worship only yourself ...”.

She also knows that this betrayal will
destroy the Faith in Rome and the
Church: “Rome will lose the Faith and
become the seat of the Antichrist!...
The Church will be eclipsed”.

And She does not ignore the fact that
the Beast and his subjects, proclaim-
ing themselves saviors of the world,
and shall deceive many, will attempt to
rise to the heavens, until they will be
thrown forever into the depths of hell !

In her apparitions of Fatima, Our Lady
confirmed what she had said at La
Salette, and the punishment that will
fall on the entire human race “within
the second half of the Twentieth Centu-
ry”; both tell of the “horrible crisis”
in which the Catholic Church will
plunge.

She tells us that Satan will march
amidst the rows of Cardinals and Bish-
ops and, in Rome, there will be great
changes, that Satan will reign in the
highest places and will even infiltrate
to the top of the Church!

But She also predicts that the rot in
Rome will fall and never rise again!
But in the meantime, the Church will
be obscured and the world deranged by
terror, will be taken in by errors made
by the partisans of Satan, who for a
while, will be able to reign over the
world, until God will again be pro-
claimed and served as before.

There were, however. Apparitions (to
Mother Mariana in Quito, from 1582
to 1634) in which the Virgin Mary, in-
voked under the name of Our Lady of
Good Success, explicitly condemns
Freemasonry using terms such as “the
cursed sect of Freemasonry,” “Satan
will reign completely through the
Masonic sects,” “the terrible hordes
of the Masonic sect”... which leave no
doubt about the main cause of the
“horrible crisis” facing the Church to-
day, and Her new... Masonic course!

318

OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS

Since the year 1582, Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres received
many apparitions of the Most Blessed Trinity, Jesus and Mary
in the Convent of the Immaculate Conception of Quito
(Ecuador), until the final apparition which took place on De-
cember 8, 1634.

In these apparitions, Our Lady, who asked to be invoked under
the title of Our Lady of Good Success, and Jesus revealed to
Mother Mariana several messages referring to the period of the
second half of the Twentieth Century.

During this period, the Church would suffer persecution in part
by Freemasonry and a horrible notorious internal crisis caused
by the betrayal of many ministers of God, who “would join the
party of Satan, by becoming members of Masonic Lodges”.
Our Lady showed to Mother Mariana the state of devastation
of the Church “from the mid-Twentieth Century and beyond”
as a punishment from God the Father for the corruption of hu-
manity!

319

«Shortly after the mid-Twentieth Century,
the passions will erupt

and there will be a total corruption of customs
for Satan will reign almost completely
by means of the Masonic sect».

***

«The Sacrament of Matrimony,
which symbolizes the union
of Christ with His Church,
will be attacked and deeply profaned.
Freemasonry, which will then in power,
will approve iniquitous laws with the aim of
doing away with this Sacrament».
«Moreover, in these unhappy times,
there will be unbridled lust ...

Innocence will almost no longer
be found in children
nor modesty in women.

In this supreme moment of need of the Church,
that one who should speak
will fall silent».

***

«During this epoch,
the Church will find Herself attacked
by terrible hordes of the Masonic sect ...

The vices of impurity, of blasphemy and sacrilege
will dominate,

in these times of depraved desolation
and that one who should speak
will fall silent».

320

«The fury of the devil, in trying to raze
the Catholic Church,
would be served by Her children who
would lose their faith.

They would work to oppress
the Church, and prevent
public devotion for they would have already
entered the party of Satan, by becoming
members of Masonic Lodges...
and the loathsome and pestiferous wild boar
of Freemasonry would enter the beautiful
and flourishing vineyard of the Church,
leaving it in complete ruins and destroyed».

***

«The Masonic Sect will be so subtle
as to penetrate into the heart of families
in order to corrupt the children,
and the Devil will pride himself in dining
upon the exquisite delicacy of
the hearts of childrens

***

«Know that the Divine Justice sends
terrible punishments on entire nations,
not only for the sins of the people,
but above all for the sins of
Priests and Religious...

Deviating from their sublime mission
they will deteriorate to the point where
that, in the eyes of God, they are the ones to
accelerate the severity of punishment».

321

Our Lady of La Salette

On September 19, 1846, on the Mountain of La Salette, Our
Lady appeared to Melanie and Maximin and gave them a Mes-
sage that was later recognized by the Church, but a diabolical
plot has continuously and deliberately mutilated and silenced it.
In this long message, Our Lady spoke these words:

«The priests, ministers of My Son
for their evil life, for their irreverence
and their impiety in celebrating
the Holy Mysteries,

for the love of money, honors and pleasures,
the priests have become
cesspools of impurity.

Yes, the priests ask for their revenge
and revenge is suspended over their heads».

322

«Woe to the Princes of the Church
who think only of piling riches, to protect their
authority and dominate with pride».

«The Church will be abandoned to great persecutions,
that one will be the time of darkness,
and the Church will have a horrible crisis... ».

***

«Tremble, earth, and you who proclaim yourselves
to worship Jesus Christ, but, on the inside,
only worship yourselves, tremble,
for God will hand you over to His enemy
because the holy places
are in the state of corruption...».

«ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH
AND BECOME

THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRISTS.

«The Church will be eclipsed...».

***

«It’s time. The sun is darkening,

Faith alone will survive!

Now is the time, the abyss is opening.

Here is the king of darkness,
here is the Beast with his subjects,
calling himself the Savior of the world.

He will rise proudly into the air
to go up to Heaven.. ».

«Then water and fire will purge the earth
and will consume all the works
of men’s pride and all will be renewed:

God will be served and glorified».

323

Our Lady of Fatima

On October 13 th , 1917, after a series of apparitions, Our La-
dy appears for the last time to the children of Fatima: Lucia,
Jacinta and Francisco. After the advent of the “Miracle of the
Sun”, the Mother of God revealed a special Message to Lucy
( also known as the “Third Secret of Fatima”) which, among
other things she said:

«A great chastisement will fall on the entire
human race; not today, not tomorrow,
but in the second half of the Twentieth Century ».

«No longer does order reign anywhere,
and Satan will reign over the highest places
and directs the course of events.

He (Satan) really will succeed in infiltrating
to the top of the Church».

324

«Also for the Church a time of Her
greatest trials will come.

Cardinals will oppose Cardinals
Bishops will oppose Bishops,
and Satan will march amid their ranks,
and in Rome great changes will occur.

What is rotten will fall,
and what will falls will never rise again.

The Church will be darkened,
and the world will be deranged by terror».

***

«A great war will break out
within the second half of the Twentieth Century.
Fire and smoke will fall from Heaven...
the foam of the the oceans will rise up
all overturning and sinking.

Millions and millions of people will die by the hour
And the survivors will envy the dead».

***

«Death will reign everywhere
for the errors, committed by the foolish
and by the partisans of Satan,
who, then and only then, will reign over the world».

***

«At last, those who will survive all of these events
will once more proclaim God and His Glory
and will serve Him like before,
when the world was not so corrupted».

325

Index

page

Preface 7

Prologue 13

Chapter I His “New Religion” 27

Chapter II His “Opening to the World” 59

Chapter III His “Opening to Modernism” 93

Chapter IV His “Opening to Freemasonry” 115

Chapter V His “Opening to Universal Democracy” 157

Chapter VI His “Tolerance and Complicity” 179

Chapter VII His “Opening to Communism” 203

Chapter VIII His “Ecumenical Mass” 241

Appendix 1 The “Oath” On the Day of His Coronation 281

Appendix 2 “Five-Pointed-Star”:

“Signature” of Paul Vi’s Pontificate 286

Appendix 3 Warnings from Our Lady 3 1 8

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Paul VI Beautified? By Father Luigi Villa nwo illuminati freemasons"

See other formats